Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Norwich Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

LABOUR CONDITIONS (RAILWAYS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to submit proposals to the Legislative Assembly for carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Labour with regard to standing machinery for settling railway disputes; and if the All-India Railwaymen's Federation will be taken into consultation before such proposals are submitted for legislative enactment?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): My latest information in regard to the recommendations referred to is that they are still under the consideration of the Government of India.

PRISONERS, ANDAMAN ISLANDS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the number of Indian prisoners convicted of political crimes now in the Andaman Islands; what are the minimum and maximum sentences covered by the transportation orders; and what is the minimum age of the prisoners?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the ordinary convict population of the islands, the latest detailed statistics are summarised on page 117 of Command Paper No. 4109. The great majority of the convicts are serving long sentences for crimes of violence, but there is no indication
whether in any particular instances political motives were involved. As regards the transfer to the Andamans of prisoners convicted in connection with terrorist outrages, which was decided upon last year as a special measure, the present position is that about 100 terrorist convicts, mostly from Bengal, have been transferred. I have no detailed information as to ages or sentences.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would it not be possible to get the age of the younger prisoners?

Sir S. HOARE: I should think so. Anyhow, I will communicate with the Government of India and let the hon. Member know.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India, whether he will direct the Government of India to offer their co-operation to the proposed census of the unemployed in India to be carried out by unemployed graduates and undergraduates in the Punjab?

Sir S. HOARE: The matter is not one in which I should wish to interfere with the discretion of the Government of India.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would it not be advisable to ascertain whether they will co-operate? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he might communicate with the Government of India and try to use his influence?

Sir S. HOARE: I hesitate to trouble the Government of India with a number of inquiries about details which seem to me to come so much under their special purview. Of course, if the hon. Member presses me, I will try to obtain the information, but I should have thought it was just the kind of question we had better leave to the local administration.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As the question of Indian unemployment reflects itself in our own unemployment, ought we not to think at least sympathetically about the census figures?

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Member presses me, I will ask for further information.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not a fact that there is really no basis
for getting the figures of unemployment in India on the same lines as in this country?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, that is so.

MEERUT TRIALS (LESLIE HUTCHINSON).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Leslie Hutchinson has given notice of appeal against his four years' sentence in connection with the Meerut trials; and does this sentence take into account the four years he has already been in prison or is it additional?

Sir S. HOARE: All the prisoners have appealed, and the sentences in all cases run from the date of judgment, that is from 16th January. It is not the case that Hutchinson has already been in prison for four years as he was granted bail during the latter part of the trial.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it at present illegal to be a Communist in India?

Sir S. HOARE: I should not like to be drawn into a general answer of that kind.

LAND MORTGAGE BANKS (DEBENTURES).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India propose to take, in view of the representations made to them from the Government of Madras, with regard to an amendment of the Indian Trusts Act, so as to declare the debentures of the Madras Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank trustee securities?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will consider the advisability of holding an inquiry with a view to enabling, or inducing, Indian insurance companies to take up the debentures of land mortgage banks as suitable long-term investments?

Sir S. HOARE: The views of the Government of India were stated by their Finance Member in the Legislative Assembly on the 1st March. His speech will be found on pages 1416–1420 of the Proceedings of the Assembly, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies).

COASTING TRADE.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India the present position with regard to the rate war now going on between indigenous and foreign shipping companies engaged in the Indian coasting trade; and what steps the Government of India propose to take in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I have reason to believe that an understanding has been reached between the parties concerned and that there is now no rate war going on such as the hon. Member has in mind.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the so-called foreign shipping companies are really indigenous in the sense that, they alone have created the whole Indian coastal traffic?

Sir S. HOARE: I expect the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in the comment which he has made. Anyhow, as far as I understand, an agreement has now been reached which, I hope, will put an end to a controversy which has lasted for several years.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (COAL).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India propose to take in view of the representations received from the Indian Mining Federation with reference to the use of Indian coal by the cotton textile industry as a condition of the renewal of supplementary protection?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information. It is not a matter in which I should wish to intervene.

HISTORY OF RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.

Mr. BERNAYS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the Government of India has prohibited the importation into India of the History of the Russian Revolution, by Leon Trotsky; and whether he can state the reasons for that action?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information on the point.

PANAMA (EMIGRATION LAWS).

Mr. McENTEE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India propose to take with regard to new emigration laws enforced
by the State of Panama in so far as they affect edversely Indian firms established in the State?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not heard whether the Government of India propose to take any action in the matter.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (COMMAND PAPER).

Mr. BERNAYS (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE): 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many copies of Proposals for Indian Constitutional Reform, Cmd. 4268, have been sold to date; and whether, in view of the importance of this document, he will consider the advisability of reducing the sale price?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The number of copies of Proposals for Indian Constitutional Reform, Cmd. 4268, that have been sold to date is 2,200. The sale price was fixed at 2s. under the pricing scale for Government publications. It is undesirable to vary the pricing scale in favour of particular documents whatever their importance, and I see no sufficient reason for varying it in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDIA (BRITISH TEXTILES).

Major PROCTER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India, why the question of the import duties on British textiles into India was not included in the Ottawa Agreements; and if he will state the present position?

Sir S. HOARE: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the report of the Indian Delegation. The reason why they could not deal with British cotton piece goods at Ottawa is explained in paragraph 29. At the time of the Ottawa Conference the duties on these goods were under reference to the Tariff Board, and it was considered that any modification of them must be postponed until the Board had reported. The present position is that the Government of India are considering the report of the Tariff Board. The extent to which other classes of British textiles are dealt with in the Ottawa Agreement can be seen by reference to Articles 10 and 11 of the Agreement, Items 141–150 of Schedule "F," and Schedule "G."

Major PROCTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making joint representations to Japan voluntarily to reduce their dumped imports into India before public opinion in both countries demands the cancellation of the Japanese trade agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India is very much alive to the urgency of the question. I will only say that in the last day or two a Bill dealing with some aspects of the question has been introduced into the Indian Assembly. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that we have the point of view that he has expressed very much in mind.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it that the Government of India, in considering the report of the Tariff Board, will bear in mind the Lancashire textile industry?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, certainly. It is a question that is never out of the mind of either the Government of India or the British Government.

RUSSIA.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give a list of cases in which default has occurred by the Soviet Government on any of its contractual engagements to British nationals in the last five years?

Lieut.-Colonel, J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. The only case of a failure on the part of the Soviet Government to meet its contractual obligations to British nationals during the last five years that has been brought to my notice, is that of the Lena Goldfields.

JAPANESE IMPORTS.

Mr. CHORLTON: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the Indian Government having devised an anti-dumping measure against Japanese imports, what steps he proposes to take with the object of carrying out the same measure in the other parts of the Empire that may be concerned?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 28th March.

Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the importance of this subject, will the hon. Member accelerate proceedings so that the dumping may be stopped?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the hon. Member is aware, the subject is a complicated one and important conferences are being held with representatives of the trade to see what steps can be taken in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

LONDON-AUSTRALIA AIR ROUTE (SURVEY).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he intends to take with regard to representations which have been made to him by the Australian Minister in London as to the delay caused to the survey of the London-Australia air route by the failure of the Dutch and Portuguese Governments to give permission for Anglo-Australian mail aeroplanes to land on their territories?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): In reply to requests addressed to them, the Portuguese Government have accorded permission and all facilities for the preliminary survey of the route, and the Netherlands. Government have requested the Netherlands East India Government to grant similar facilities.

CHINA.

Mr. NUNN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the national aviation services in China are under American and German control; and what steps have been taken to secure similar privileges for British interests?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that two corporations have been formed, by agreements between a United States and a German company, respectively, and the Chinese Government, for the purpose of operating certain Chinese national air services. All proper assistance will of course be given to any British undertaking desirous of entering this field.

Mr. NUNN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no private flying allowed in China and that all the flying is under the national service, and that
therefore it is entirely in the hands of American and German operators?

Sir J. SIMON: I have just answered that all proper assistance will be given to all-British undertakings as far as it can be done.

Mr. NUNN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from the British Minister in China upon the representations submitted by British aircraft manufacturers in favour of the appointment of a special aviation attaché to promote the use of British aircraft in China; and what action it is proposed to take?

Sir J. SIMON: I have received a recommendation from His Majesty's Minister that an air attaché should be appointed to His Majesty's Legation, and the matter is under consideration.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES (MOSQUITOES).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the warnings issued by the Ross Institute and the Institute of Micro-Biology regarding the danger of diseases such as yellow fever being introduced into this country by mosquitoes in aeroplanes; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. Carriage in aeroplanes of the infection of yellow fever has been carefully considered for several years by the International Office of Public Health and its Yellow Fever Commission. Proposals for dealing with this danger, and with other infectious diseases, are embodied in an International Sanitary Convention for Aerial Navigation which awaits ratification. My right hon. Friend is advised that the danger referred to by my hon. Friend does not apply to this country, but to countries where yellow fever could develop if introduced.

Mr. LUNN: Is it not possible for yellow fever to be conveyed by these means?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The danger is extremely remote. I am informed that the Imperial Airways Service have two breaks, and the new machine starts from Paris minus mosquitoes.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BOXER INDEMNITY.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Chinese Government whether any of the proceeds of the British share of the Boxer Indemnity have yet been devoted to educational endowments in China, and, in particular, whether the interest on unexpended capital sums in the hands of the London Purchasing Commission is credited to the Board of Trustees for educational purposes?

Sir J. SIMON: According to the latest report issued by the Board of Trustees, covering the period January-June, 1932, copies of which have been placed in the Library of this House, the proceeds of the loans made by the board to productive enterprises have not yet amounted to a sum sufficient to enable grants to be made to the educational and other institutions which have made application for funds. I am having inquiries made in respect of the period subsequent to that covered by the above report. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The interest, however, together with the capital, is available for the purchase of material in the United Kingdom, and, in accordance with the Indemnity Agreement of 1930, money so expended is to be treated as a loan from the Board of Trustees to the enterprise which benefits from it, and will eventually be applied to educational purposes.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the United States have given up about a fifth of the sum which the British taxpayer has given up, and have already secured a lasting memorial of their good will and sacrifice in the shape of a Peking University? Cannot the Government secure some similar monument to mark the generosity of the British taxpayer?

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for mentioning the matter, and I will look into it.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Chinese Government in favour of restricting advances to Chinese railways out of the British share of the Boxer
Indemnity to such railways as have made definite arrangements for the liquidation of past loans?

Sir J. SIMON: The question of advances to Chinese railways is one for the discretion of the Board of Trustees. In the agreement of September, 1930, printed in Command Paper 3715, the Chinese Government stated their intention so far as rehabilitation of existing lines was concerned, of giving prior attention to those lines in which British financial interest has been particularly concerned. My hon. Friend will realise that the rehabilitation and completion of existing railways will tend to increase the revenues from the railways in question, and so improve the position of the bondholders of loans already secured on them. The policy which he suggests might, I think, have the contrary effect.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that some of these grants are being given to railway concerns which are making no effort to pay off past loans?

Sir J. SIMON: That is not my information. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion might make it impossible for a particular railway to receive an advance for revenue-producing expenditure without which the revenues might well continue to remain insufficient to meet normal expenditure.

Mr. MOREING: 21.
asked the, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the proposed loan of £4,000,000 to the Chinese Ministry of Railways by the board of trustees of the British Boxer Indemnity Funds, for the completion of the Hankow-Canton Railway; what security is offered for the repayment of interest and amortisation on the loan; and whether such security includes revenues which would otherwise be available for the payment of arrears on loans to Chinese railways?

Sir J. SIMON: I have received no official information, but my attention has been drawn to Chinese Press reports of the loan referred to, according to which the security approved by the board of trustees consists of the following: the net profit on one section and the gross profit of the other section of the Kwangtung portion of the Canton-Hankow Railway, together with the entire revenue of the
surcharge on the passenger and freight transportation of the various Chinese Government railways.

KOWLOON TERRITORY.

Mr. NUNN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any recent report from the British Consulate-General at Canton regarding negotiations with the Chinese authorities there upon the subject of the retrocession of the Kowloon territory; and, if so, what action does the Government propose to take with regard to this question?

Sir J. SIMON: No such report has been received. The answer to the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

NEW BUILDINGS, GENEVA.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the failure of British firms to obtain a. proportionate share of the contracts involved in the construction of the League of Nations buildings at Geneva; that the specification for the electrical installation required certain of the equipment to be the products of certain German and Swiss firms and that these firms refuse to supply this equipment to British contractors, so that it is impossible for British contractors to tender for this installation; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that the contracts for the new buildings at Geneva have not been awarded to firms of different nationality on the basis of the amount annually contributed to the expenses of the League by the various countries. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that in the allocation of contracts no discrimination has been made between firms on grounds of nationality and that nothing prejudicial to British firms has been intentionally incorporated in the specifications. As to the particular case referred to, I am prepared to make further inquiries.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has my right hon. Friend studied the documents which I handed to his private secretary, and do not these show that the contract for the electrical installation specified certain
German and Swiss goods, and, as the firms that make these goods have declined to supply them to British firms, is it not the case that British firms are thus debarred from quoting for the electrical installation?

Sir J. SIMON: In the last sentence of the original answer I said that in the particular case referred to I am prepared to make further inquiries.

Mr. THORNE: Will it be possible to supply the names of those who have obtained the contracts?

Sir J. SIMON: I believe the names are available. The question has to do with the calling for competitive tenders and with a British firm that is anxious to tender.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps are taken to prevent contracts being given to those nations who are in arrear with their subscriptions?

Sir J. SIMON: I can only speak as far as my information goes from the Committee of the League of Nations. I believe there is an impartial committee on which there is a British member which deals with the whole of these matters, but I do not believe that in allocating the contracts any regard is paid to the amount contributed or not contributed to the expenses of the League by different countries.

UPPER SILESIA (JEWISH MINORITY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether action to protect the Jewish minority in Upper Silesia is to be taken by the League of Nations under Article 11 of the Covenant; and whether, seeing that the right of the said Jewish minority to full equality is guaranteed under Articles 68 and 69 of the German-Polish Convention of 1922, which was communicated to the League, he will make a statement on the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Council of the League has laid It down that the procedure under Article 11 of the Covenant should not normally be employed in cases relating to the protection of minorities under the Treaties, and—I am quoting now—
should only be invoked in grave cases which produce the feeling that facts exist which might effectively menace the maintenance of peace between nations.
It is doubtful, therefore, whether Article 11 could be properly invoked in connection with the protection of the Jewish minority in Upper Silesia. As regards the German-Polish Convention of 1922 regarding Upper Silesia, I am not aware that any appeal has been made to the League Council on the ground that the Jewish minority has been deprived of the rights secured by it under that convention.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If action is taken, either under Article 11 or under the Polish-German Treaty, by any party, will that action be made public, and is not the present situation between Poland and Germany sufficiently grave to make it desirable that such action should be taken?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know very precisely the form which the procedure would take, but I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be assured that, if action were taken under Article 11 to bring the question before the League, the matter would be public.

Mr. JANNER: In view of the fact that a considerable amount of anxiety is at present prevailing with regard to the position of 600,000 Jewish people in Germany, could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to consider whether this question could not be raised by himself or by somebody in conjunction with him?

Sir J. SIMON: The whole subject of the position of Jews in Germany is one which is receiving a, great deal of public attention, and, as I have already informed the House, I am myself already making inquiries.

MANDATED TERRITORIES (PACIFIC ISLANDS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the mandates given to Japan over various Pacific Islands, formerly German possessions, were contingent upon Japan remaining a member of the League of Nations, this matter is to be discussed at Geneva; and what the standpoint of the British delegates will be?

Sir J. SIMON: Japan's notice of withdrawal from the League does not take effect for two years. I have no information of any intention to discuss the question of her mandates at Geneva. I am not at present in a position to define the standpoint which the delegates of His Majesty's Government will adopt if such a discussion eventually takes place. Nor can I express an opinion on the correctness of the statement contained in the question.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is not the action of Japan in ignoring the decisions of the League tantamount to a withdrawal and the forfeiting of the rights of membership of the League?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will appreciate that what has happened is that notice has been given of withdrawal, and, by the terms of the constitution of the League, that notice operates in two years' time. The effect of withdrawal, when it takes place, on the position is an extremely complex question, upon which, I have said, I do not feel that I can express an opinion now.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will Japan go on paying during the two years?

Sir J. SIMON: I must not venture to prophesy, but every member of the League, as long as the State is a member of the League, is under the obligation to pay the appropriate contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS (BRITISHBORN WOMEN).

Captain CAZALET: 18.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as regards the new restrictions placed upon visas granted by European countries to British-born women holding Nansen passports and identity cards?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no information as to the imposition of any such new restrictions, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know of any case of special hardship, I will certainly look into it.

Captain CAZALET: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the restrictions which are operative to-day are caused by the
fact that British-born women do not possess the advantages of nationality now enjoyed by women in almost every country in Europe and in some of the Dominions as well?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. and gallant Friend's question had to do with new restrictions placed upon visas of British-born women holding passports. British-born women are stateless because they are not at present British subjects, and, therefore, legislation would be needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (ARRESTS).

Mr. COCKS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the case of Mr. Geoffrey Fraser, a British subject, who was arrested in Berlin on 4th April by Nazi auxiliary police; whether Mr. Fraser is still under arrest; whether any charge has been formulated against him; whether the British ambassador in Berlin has been allowed to see him; and what action the British Government is taking in the matter?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can as yet state the charges made against the two Englishmen arrested in Germany?

Sir J. SIMON: My information is that Mr. Fraser was arrested under the instructions of the police authorities, by regular police officers, and that, as was stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on Tuesday last, he has been detained in the police headquarters in the Alexanderplatz. The police authorities have informed His Majesty's Consul in Berlin that Mr. Fraser is charged with having committed acts in preparation for high treason; and that he is to be transferred to the Moabit prison to await his trial. His Majesty's Ambassador has requested the German Minister for Foreign Affairs to furnish him at an early date with more precise information regarding the charge against Mr. Fraser. As regards Mr. Catchpool, he was released on the day following his arrest. I do not understand that any charge has been brought against him.

Mr. COCKS: Will the Foreign Secretary make a protest to the German Government against making these frivolous and fantastic accusations against a British subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not in a position to say whether the charges are fantastic.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman content to make polite inquiries and not take any further action in the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I hope that I have taken the action the House would wish me to take.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember, in any representations which he is making about the persecution of Jews in Germany, that the persecution of Liberals is just as bad and far less vocally represented?

POSTERS, LONDON.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was with his authority that the Metropolitan Police ordered the withdrawal of Jewish posters calling for a boycott of Germany and German goods on account of the treatment of Jews in Germany, and, if so, will he state the reasons?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that, in view of the feeling likely to be caused by the display of posters advocating a boycott of Germany and German goods, and of the possibility of breaches of the peace being caused, police officers advised the removal of the notices as a precautionary measure and in the interests of the shopkeepers themselves. I am further informed that there is no foundation for the suggestion that orders were given by the police for the removal of the posters or that proceedings were threatened for failure to comply. The police would be failing in their duty to the public if they did not take all steps in their power, whether by advice or otherwise, to guard against breaches of the peace, and no authority from me was given or was required for the action which was taken. I feel sure that the House will agree as to the undesirability of any action being taken at the present juncture by members of the public which might be likely to inflame feeling.

Mr. ATTLEE: Are we to understand from the Home Secretary that he has information of physical force being threatened by anti-Semitic organisations of this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that the police used their discretion. These things may occur; and they used their discretion, I think rightly, in the matter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what quarter breaches of the peace were likely to arise?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The right hon. Member knows, and the House knows, that these disturbances may take place, and all that the police did was to say that it was preferable to withdraw the posters.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Have we not all protested?

Major NATHAN: May I ask whether the police have any grounds for thinking that there were likely to be any disturbances of the peace?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I imagine they have; otherwise, they would not have taken this course in the interests of the public.

Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how any grounds for thinking that there were likely to be any disturbances can have arisen, seeing that these posters have been exhibited for some two weeks without the slightest interference?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of that fact. All I can say is that my attention was not drawn to this matter until this morning. I have made inquiries. I was not aware that these posters have been exhibited for some time. I have given the House all the information I have.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of these facts, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the order?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no order; the matter is left perfectly open.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the case that the Jews Are in a great minority and that, therefore, we ought to be scrupulously fair?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no question of unfairness. All that was done was to give certain advice which was believed to be in their own interests.

Mr. LOGAN: May I ask whether any German representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to that is "No."

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether it can be understood by Jews that they may now exhibit such posters?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If they choose to do so, they are perfectly entitled. Of course they may.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is his intention, and the intention of the Government, to allow all reasonable expressions of free opinion upon this matter to be made in this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly; there is no doubt about it.

Mr. THORNE: Has the Home Secretary seen one of these posters in the windows? Is he aware that they are simple statements of fact, that no German agents need apply, and that that is all there is in it?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. COCKS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding Japanese military operations south of the Great Wall of China?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that Shihmenchai, a village lying between the Great Wall and Chinwangtao, was evacuated by Chinese, and occupied by Japanese troops on the 1st of April; there is reported also to have been fighting between that place and the coast, but the facts are not clear. The Chinese regular troops are reported to have withdrawn to the west of Tangho, the railway junction for Chinwangtao.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to protect British interests in that neighbourhood, particularly the interests of the British Kailan Mining Assbciation; and how long is the invasion of a peaceful country to continue?

Sir J. SIMON: I am unable to answer the second part of the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman. As regards the first part of the supplementary question, close attention has been paid to the question of protecting British interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ROPE (SISAL FIBRE).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the report to the Admiralty upon the successful results of the tests of rope made from Empire fibre, he will insist upon the use of such rope in all future Post Office work?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to the report which states that the results of trials of Sisal fibre are sufficiently promising to warrant its partial adoption by the Admiralty so long as supplies can be obtained at satisfactory prices. I propose to follow the same line, and to have regard also to cost and suitability to the conditions in which the rope will be used.

LETTER DELIVERY, SAUL.

Mr. PERKINS: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted in London at 3 p.m. are not delivered in Saul, Gloucestershire, until the second post on the following day; and whether he will take steps to improve this service?

Sir K. WOOD: Letters incorrectly addressed to Saul, Gloucestershire, and posted in London at 3 p.m. are not delivered until the second post the following day, but, so far as I am aware, no instances have occurred where letters bearing the correct address, "Saul, Gloucester," have not been delivered until the second post.

NIGHT TELEPHONISTS.

Miss PICKFORD: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General how many women telephonists have accepted employment until 11 p.m.; how many men are working as part-time telephonists with no other Post Office employment; how many men are working an 87-hour week; and whether he will hold an inquiry into the conditions of night work with a view to
the up-grading of part-time trained telephonists?

Sir K. WOOD: Since I made an appeal a short time ago to women telephonists to volunteer for evening employment, some 70 in London have volunteered and next week a number will, I hope, commence such duties at one of the London exchanges. This number will, I hope, be augmented when it is more fully realised that my object is to improve the night telephone service in accordance with the experience of all other telephone administrations, that no man who is dependent for his livelihood upon the Post Office will be adversely affected, and that there will be various advantages to those women telephonists who undertake such duties. The number of part-time night telephonists in London with no other Post Office employment is 874, but a considerable number of them have other whole-time employment. The number of men who attend for 87 hours is 4; these men are only employed at small exchanges where they are able to obtain a reasonable amount of sleep during their attendance. I am keeping the conditions of night work under constant observation with a view to the creation of full-time appointments where justified.

AIR MAIL CHARGES.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to extend the policy of averaging postal rates so as to make profitable services pay for the non-profitable, in order to cover air mail services, or, if not, will he state what obstacles exist to prevent this being done?

Sir K. WOOD: The charges to the public for the use of each air service or group or air services are fixed at the lowest possible point and there are no profits available which could be used to set off unremunerative rates. Owing to the wide disparity in the costs of air conveyance it is not practicable to adopt an average rate.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (RUBBER FITTINGS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, with the object of stimulating and calling attention to the increasing uses of rubber in manufactured articles,
he will consider the possibility of placing further trial orders for appropriate fittings in Government offices?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I shall be happy to consider any suggestions that my hon. Friend may submit to me for the use of rubber in connection with fittings for Government offices.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (HOUSING, ABERDEEN).

Mr. BURNETT: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to intervene in the dispute which has arisen between the town council of Aberdeen and the tenants of subsidised houses from the action taken by the council under the Department of Health for Scotland Circular No. 51, 1933?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that hundreds of people in Aberdeen who are tenants of subsidised houses are being threatened with eviction for refusal to answer a means questionnaire; and whether he will make inquiries as to the possibility of reaching some agreement on the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am aware that the corporation of Aberdeen have issued a questionnaire calling for the information necessary to ascertain whether the corporation's houses are occupied by persons of the working classes. This action is in consonance with the circular issued by the Department of Health for Scotland on the instructions of my right hon. Friend recommending that local authorities should take steps to satisfy themselves that the houses provided by them are occupied by such persons. I understand that in cases where the tenant refused to answer the questionnaire the corporation have issued a formal notice terminating the tenancy. I am informed, however, that this notice has been accompanied by a letter in which the corporation indicate that if the questionnaire is returned duly completed, the corporation will be prepared to consider the granting of a new tenancy at the present rent, or, at such increase on the present rent not exceeding £5 per annum at the corporation may determine
having regard to the information contained in the reply to the questionnaire. In answer to the question by my hon. Friend, the Member for North Aberdeen, I may add that it is not my right hon. Friend's intention to intervene in the matter. The general management, regulation and control of the dwelling houses provided by a local authority are, under the Housing Acts, vested in and exercised by the local authority alone.

Mr. BURNETT: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the action of the town council is based upon this particular circular, that 906 families have received notice to terminate their tenancies, and that considerable uneasiness is felt because this notice has been given?

Mr. SKELTON: I think the uneasiness caused by the notices to terminate the tenancies will be mitigated by the knowledge that, if the questionnaire is returned and if circumstances justified it, there will be no increase of rent, and that any possible increase of rent is limited to £5 a year.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Under-Secretary tell us where the town council gets statutory power to compel its citizens to fill up questionnaires of this kind?

Mr. SKELTON: It is contained in the last sentence of my original answer.

Mr. BURNETT: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL ELECTION, CRAYFORD.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the recent council election of the Crayford District Council two candidates tied with 975 votes each, and that after two recounts it was decided to settle the issue by cutting a, pack of cards; and if he will take steps to prevent similar happenings in future?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Rule 20 of the Urban District Councillors Election Rules, 1931, provides that in the event of an equality of votes between candidates, the returning officer, if he is not a local government elector for the area or if he is not willing to vote, shall determine by lot which of the candidates is to be elected,
and I see no reason to think that there has been any breach of the law in this case.

Mr. REMER: In view of similar cases that have happened in other parts of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman make clearer rules so that the returning officers may know what to do?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the general installation of traffic-governing lights, any classes of the community, such as police and firemen, have the right, in case of an emergency, of ignoring them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no statutory exemption for any classes of the community from the provisions of the Road Traffic Act as to conforming to the indication given by a traffic sign, but I am not aware of any difficulty arising with regard to the passage of police and of firemen in cases of emergency, and I do not think any special provision is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED HOUSES, LONDON (PERMITTED HOURS).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the approach of Easter, he will take steps to bring the special hours of opening of licensed houses in the Metropolitan Police area into uniformity with the hours sanctioned by licensing benches on the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police area?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid this is not possible. As I pointed out in answer to a question by the hon. Member on the 22nd December last, it is incumbent on the Commissioner to consider each application for a special order of exemption separately and on its merits, and it would not be proper for me to interfere with his discretion in the manner suggested.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Is it not possible to bring the licensed houses in the Metropolitan Police area under the same regulations as the houses in the other districts? In the other districts they are licensed by districts, would it not be
possible in the Metropolitan Police area to bring them under the same control?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, but, if the hon. Member would care to discuss the matter with me, we could do so more appropriately than across the Floor of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. COCKS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the present position of the negotiations for a Four-Power Pact?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I understand that the subject is to be raised during the Debate on the Adjournment on Thursday.

Mr. COCKS: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that any Pact which involves any concessions to the present German Government will be instantly repudiated by the British people?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that the House is well aware that there is no such Pact under contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to discuss the question of this country's return to the Gold Standard on his coming visit to the United States of America; and whether he will give an assurance that the wishes of this House will be ascertained before any steps in that direction are taken by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I intend to set no limits to the subjects which may be mentioned in the course of conversation between the President and myself. The object of the visit is not to negotiate and fix agreements, but to discuss questions which both of us are confronting. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. DAVID MASON: Is it not the case that no steps of this character can be taken without legislation which must be submitted to this House?

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when he is
leaving for America and how long he will be away?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to leave England on 15th April, and to arrive back in this country on the 3rd May.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to prevent this country remaining the only one paying its obligations?

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTERSEA ELECTRICITY POWER STATION.

Captain SIDNEY HERBERT: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the present position of the application made by the London Power Company, Limited, to the Electricity Commissioners for consent to instal an additional unit of generating plant in the new Battersea power station?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The London Power Company have applied to the Electricity Commissioners for consent to instal an additional generator unit. The Commissioners have informed me that their sanction to the proposal will be coupled with a condition limiting the output to a figure within the capacity of the existing plant and no sanction would, of course, be given to any extension of the coal-burning plant at the station until the Commissioners, in agreement with the Minister of Health and the First Commissioner of Works, are satisfied that the gas-washing plant already installed is working efficiently in connection with the existing boiler plant.
At the request of the London County Council the Commissioners met representatives of the County Council and of the city of Westminster, the Royal borough of Kensington and the borough of Chelsea. After learning of the condition proposed to be attached to any consent, and in view of the assurances given that there would be adequate opportunity for these authorities to consider any subsequent proposals for further developments at the new Battersea power station, the four councils do not now offer any objection to the present proposal. In all the circumstances, the Minister of Health and the First Commissioner of Works concur with me that there is no objection to the additional generator unit
being sanctioned, and I have informed the Electricity Commissioners accordingly. I understand that the additional set would provide about one year's employment for 1,400 men.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES).

Sir PERCY HURD (for Mr. SUMMERSBY): 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the considerable increase of income to the Metropolitan Water Board consequent on the increase of assessments in London; and will he introduce amending legislation so to control the Board's charges as to prevent any increase of profit to the Board consequent upon increased assessments?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The object which my hon. Friend has in mind is, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, already secured by the local Acts governing the Board's undertaking, which provide that there shall be no profit.

Sir P. HURD: May I ask whether that circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Water Board so that their customers may be fairly treated?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I presume they know the regulations under which they work.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. G. S. DARA.

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN): 42 and 43.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether the passport of Mr. G. S. Dara, Congress secretary and editor of United India, who resides in London, has been found to be in order; and if he can state the reasons for police visits being made on this man;
(2) If he can state the number of occasions that police visits were made on Mr. G. S. Dara, Congress secretary and editor of United India, who resides in London?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that a passport was issued to Mr. Dana by the Passport Office in 1930, current for the normal period of five years. Two visits have been paid to Mr. Dara by the police, one in 1928, in connection with a case then being investigated in India about which the Metropolitan Police had been asked to make inquiries, and one in 1932, following a suggestion which had arisen that his
passport was not in order. On the latter occasion, as stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 7th July, 1932, an interview was sought as the simplest and most expeditious method of clearing up the point, but Mr. Dara declined to make an appointment and the passport consequently has not been examined.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 24.

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[3.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Meller, Richard James


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)


Atholl, Duchess of
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goff, Sir Park
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bernays, Robert
Goldie, Noel B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Blindell, James
Granville, Edgar
Munro, Patrick


Borodale, Viscount
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
North, Captain Edward T.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nunn, William


Bracken, Brendan
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hales, Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harris, Sir Percy
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Burghley, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pike, Cecil F.


Burnett, John George
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Potter, John


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pybus, Percy John


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotltam, Herwald


Castlereagh, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ray, Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rea, Walter Russell


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Clarke, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Clayton Dr. George C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kimball, Lawrence
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Knight, Holford
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Conant, R. J. E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Selley, Harry R.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cross, R. H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Davison, Sir William Henry
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Donner, P. W.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mabane, William
Smithers, Waldron


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Storey, Samuel


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maitland, Adam
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Womersley, Walter James


Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. sir H. Kingsley


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
John, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Tinker.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

Resolution of the House of 29th March last relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Lords Message of 6th. April signifying their concurrence in the Resolution, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee of Sixteen Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, to consider the future Government of India and, in particular, to examine and report on the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268."—[Captain Margesson.]

3.40 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am reminded by this Motion of a very wise observation of Dr. Johnson's, something to this effect:
Make a man Prime Minister, and in 24 hours he will have lost all his friends.
I would extend that observation to Secretaries of State for India, particularly when they are dealing with proposals for setting up Joint Select Committees of both Houses. I can assure the House that of all the difficult questions that have faced me during the last 18 months none has occasioned greater complexities than the proposal which I am here to make this afternoon. The communal decision to which the Government came last summer was child's play compared with the negotiations that led up to the proposals which appear on the Paper. Indeed, if I may make a further comparison, I would say that the selection committees for the Test Match or the Davis Cup had a task far easier and far more popular than that which has been imposed upon me and my colleagues.
To-day, in a very few minutes, I propose to explain to the House why we make the proposals on the Paper and the reasons which have led us to suggest a committee of this size and composition. I started innocently with the idea that much the best type of committee would be a small committee of five or six drawn from both Houses, distinguished people who were quite impartial, in fact a small committee of Aristides. My trouble there, as the Lord President of the Council has just observed to me, was that the people of that kind are very difficult to find and are often very unpopular when
found. Step by step I was driven from the idea of this small committee of impartial people—I do not think anybody on Indian questions is entirely impartial—and I was driven to the conception of a bigger committee composed, first, of experts, and, secondly, of representatives of the main bodies of opinion in both Houses.
When one came to see how that conception could be carried out, inevitably one was driven from comparatively small numbers to larger numbers. Take, for instance, the number of Indian experts, men who have done great service to India and the Empire, men whose names we should all expect to find upon a Committee of this kind. There is a considerable number of them. Take again this House. It has always been difficult in chosing Members of Select Committees to balance the strength of the parties in the House of Commons. It is more than ever difficult in this House. In this House there are more groups and parties than there have ever been in any House that any of us remember. I suppose there are four or five parties in this House, and I see sitting over there my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who is a party in himself, a kind of Athanasius contra mundum. When I come to my own party, I should be blinding myself to the very obvious facts if I said that the party was completely united upon Indian questions, and if I did not admit that there were definitely three groups, all of which ought to be represented on such a Committee as we are now proposing.
Let us remember that the Committee which we suggest is a Select Committee of both Houses. That means that we have to take both Houses as we find them. We have to take the representation that we actually see around us in this Chamber. We cannot go into abstruse and controversial questions as to what exactly is the balance of opinion in the country. No Select Committee has ever been formed on those lines. A Select Committee is formed on the basis of the representation of the parties and groups as they are actually found in the House of Commons. I have here an analysis of the membership of this House. I find that of the 615 Members who compose it 80.65 per cent, are Conservative, National' Labour and Independent—468 being Con-
servatives—while 11.06 per cent, are Liberal—there are 68 Liberal Members —and 8.29 per cent. are Labour, representing 51 Members of the Labour Opposition. If you took the mathematical calculation as the exclusive test for a Committee of this kind, it would mean that in a Committee of from 15 to 17 Members—the actual number that we are proposing from the House of Commons is 16—but in the case of a committee of 15 the membership would be 12 Conservative, two Liberal, and one Labour. If it were a Committee of 17 the membership would be 13 Conservative, one Independent, two Liberal, one Labour. But the inquiries which I have made go to show that in actual practice, in the setting up of these Select Committees a "weightage"—an expression which is very common in Indian controversies about the communal question—is always given to minority parties. The result is, that the House to-day will find that we are proposing in the list of names which we have put before the House to give weightage, apart from their mathematical balance, first of all, to the Labour Opposition and, secondly, to the Liberal party.
I come now to the more difficult question of the representation of the Conservative party. I think I shall be right in describing the Conservative party as divided into three groups. First of all, there is the group that one may describe generally as in favour of the White Paper policy; secondly, there is the group definitely opposed to that policy; and, thirdly, there is the group, in undefined numbers, of my hon. Friends who have not made up their minds, or at any rate have not expressed them yet, as either in favour of or opposed to the Government proposals. We have taken into account all those three groups, and we have tried to see that they should be adequately represented on the committee as a whole. Let me say in passing, although it would obviously be out of order for me to make more than a passing allusion to the proposals for the House of Lords representation, that every hon. Member must take the proposals as a whole and must treat the committee as a single unit, and when he is considering what representation has been given to any group in this House, he must also take into account the representation that
it is proposed to give to that group in another place.
Let me begin with the group of Conservatives who are definitely opposed, at any rate at present, to the Government proposals. On two occasions during this Parliament they have had the opportunity of declaring their views in the Division Lobby. In December, 1931, they voted against the Government after the discussion upon the White Paper that emerged from the Round Table Conference, and 43 of them went into the Division Lobby.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: How many abstained?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not know. In February of this year, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) moved a Resolution upon the Government of India, there again the issue was joined in the Division Lobby, and upon that occasion 42, of whom I think 41 were Conservatives, went into the Lobby against the Government.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that those who went into the Lobby against my Motion were voting for the White Paper?

Sir S. HOARE: No, but I am coming to that. I think the House must take the evidence as we find it, namely, that upon the two occasions when the issue has been joined between the Government and one section of the Conservative party, upon one occasion 43 Members went into the Lobby against the Government and upon the second occasion 42. Then I come to the group—it may be a large group—of my hon. Friends who have either not made up their minds or at any rate have not yet declared their minds. We have taken their point of view very fully into account, and as I shall show in a moment, they have, taking both Houses together, able and adequate representatives to make known their point of view.
I was unfortunate in not being able to persuade all my hon. Friends whom we should have desired to see on this Committee to join the Committee. One or two of them refused to join because they disapproved either of the representation suggested on the Committee or of the
whole basis. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) felt it his duty to refuse, and I was very sorry that he did. I should have welcomed his presence on the Committee. I believe, if I may say so, that his views would have carried much more weight if he had been there to express them. I am always doubtful myself—perhaps I am wrong—but time after time I have had it borne in upon my mind that non-co-operation is really a bad plan. That is one of the reasons why I have never been able to agree with Mr. Gandhi, and indeed I have noticed in more respects than one that, although differing in every essential point of view, my right hon. Friend and Mr. Gandhi have been sometimes inclined to adopt the same kind of policy.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I trust my right hon. Friend will see that it is for a different object, and that non-co-operation to injure the British Empire is different from non-co-operation to assist it.

Sir S. HOARE: I am not to be drawn into an argument with my right hon. Friend, but I would only say that I do not think Mr. Gandhi would agree with the observation that he has just made. Anyhow, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, my right hon. Friend did not see his way to allow his name to be proposed as a Member of the House of Commons representatives on this Committee. There were other of my hon. Friends whom I should like to have seen on the Committee, but who were prevented from serving for other reasons. After all, it is asking a busy man a great deal to devote day after day, it may be month after month, to work of this kind and to cut himself adrift from his ordinary avocations; and, very much to my regret, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was debarred on this ground from serving on the Committee; and there were my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I say unreservedly that the Committee would have been the stronger for their presence, and I am extremely sorry that their business and legal avocations prevented them from giving their time to this work.
The result of these negotiations and these deliberations, which have now been going on for many weeks, is that, so far as the Conservative representation on the Committee is concerned, we are proposing 22 Members of the Conservative party, taking into account the representation in both Houses, and of those I think I should be right in saying that 10 or 11 are generally in sympathy with the Government policy, and the rest have either expressed their disapproval of some material part of it or have maintained their complete impartiality. I maintain that a representation of that kind is a very fair mirror of opinion in the Conservative party as a whole—a representation divided, roughly speaking, between those in favour of the Government programme and those either opposed or doubtful about it. So much for the unofficial members of the Committee.
I come now to the Government representatives of the Committee, and I see that some of ray hon. Friends object to there being any Members of the Government on a Committee of this kind. How I should like to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend after months and months of committees and round table conferences and inquiries! If it were only a matter of personal convenience I would give up my chair to any other hon. Member in this House who desires it. But, quite apart from personal considerations, and apart from who may or may not be Secretary of State for India at the present time, I do not honestly believe that any committee of this kind can efficiently carry out its work without an effective representation of the Government upon it. My hon. Friends may say, "That is all very well for one or two Members of the Government, but why are six Members of the Government on a committee of this kind?" I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping say, "Hear, hear" to that. I will give him the answer. These six Members of the Government are proposed to the Committee, not because the greater part are Members of the Government, but because the greater part, owing to their special claims in connection with India, and owing to their special fitness, ought to find a place on any committee of this kind.
Take, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The House will see that we have taken special pains to see that members of the Simon Commission are well represented upon this Committee. What could be more foolish than to have two or three members of the Simon Commission and to exclude the Chairman? Take, again, the long list of great experts, men who served many years in India. What could be more foolish than to put on the Committee one or two ex-Viceroys and to leave off a third ex-Viceroy. Take, again, the work of the Round Table Conference. Some of my hon. Friends never liked the Round Table Conference, and they did not disguise their views, but I do not think any hon. Member will now say the deliberations of the Round Table Conference did not form an important stage in the discussions through, which we have passed. It is, therefore, essential that, if the Committee is really to be an effective and a representative body, to have the prominent members of the Round Table Conference represented upon it. Lastly, there were the committees that went out to India last year, I believe with the full approval of almost every Member of this House, one of them presided over by Lord Lothian, who, naturally, ought to find a place on the Committee, and another presided over by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and I am sure we could find no better man and no more experienced judgment than his to have on a committee. You have the chairman of those two Committees. What rhyme or reason could there possibly be—and here I am not dealing with personal considerations at all—in leaving out the chairman of the third committee and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who made the very important inquiry connected with the Indian States.
These are the main reasons which justify the proposals that I am making this afternoon. I believe that I have justified them upon the details. I believe that I have justified them upon an analysis of the actual numbers of the various groups composed in this House. But I do not base my main argument at all upon the details, or upon an analytical, mathematical computation. I base it rather upon the general personnel of
the Committee as a whole, and I ask any impartial hon. Member, wherever he may sit in the House, to look at this list of names, and to ask himself the question, "Are these the kind of people who are going into this inquiry with preconceived and rigid views upon a Government or party ticket?" I believe that the great majority of these gentlemen will go into this inquiry with a genuine desire to arrive at a wise and an impartial conclusion, and the suggestion that these men will be at the beck and call of the Government, the victims of party Whips, is really a complete travesty of the kind of Committee we are setting up. I have had some experience of these inquiries, and I do not for a moment believe that this Committee is going to be ranged into a series of camps with no bridge between them and everybody approaching everything with a preconceived view. I believe that, in actual practice, there will be very little voting at all, and I say here and now that the fact that a particular group may be small in numbers seems to me to enter very little into the case. The views of the Members will carry the weight that is due. The sections which represent those views will carry the weight that is due to them also, and I do not contemplate for a moment the work of this Committee as a series of party votes between one section and another. I hope that I have said enough to justify the proposal that I have made this afternoon, and I should like to end by hoping that the Committee will be of real value to this House and another place in enabling us to come to wise judgments to produce, in due course, a Bill that will be generally acceptable to Parliament.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I want to intervene only for a few minutes, because I feel that I am keeping Members of the Conservative party away from the joys of internecine strife. I sympathise very much with the Secretary of State in his extraordinarily difficult task. He told us that he had been looking out for a small committee of Aristides, but all his trouble has been with Alcibiades, and eventually he has been left out of the team. I want to state, briefly, our position in this matter. We are not concerned in the domestic question, which is between the various groups which support the Government. From our point
of view, there is the Government and there is the Opposition. The Government consists of one party. It may be compared to a considerable building in which there are semi-detached portions, but with no party walls between them, and whether you put in a Liberal Member from one or the other groups, or a Conservative Member on this side of the Gangway or the other, from our point of view they are all Members supporting the Government. They have all been elected as supporters of the Government. They represent, or did represent 18 months ago, a very big majority of the electors of this country. We represented a smaller body at that time, but probably a very much bigger body to-day. Most people will be inclined to agree with that.
The difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman is in getting a just balance of the views of this House and of the people in the other place. He says, quite rightly, that Committees in this House are made up in proportion to the actual Members elected, but I do not know that it is absolutely wise in a matter of this sort to keep strictly to mathematical proportions. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, and I believe he is perfectly right, because, after all, this Committee is not like a committee on some Private Bill, or even a committee on an ordinary party Bill. We are facing here a very, very big issue for the British Empire, and it is important when we discuss proposals which are going to affect not only the future of India but the future of this country and the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that we should endeavour to get on that Committee the experience of widely diverse opinion among the different sections of political thought in this country.
I frankly recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has given Members of this party more, than their actual mathematical proportion in this House, but we are always in a difficulty, because whatever we get, in this House we are bound to be a very small minority in another place, and the right hon. Gentleman said that in considering its numbers you must not think merely of the 16 representatives of the Commons, but you must think also of the 32 Members who form the whole Committee. We on these benches claim that we have been returned by one-third of the electors who voted at the election,
and we say that in this business of Indian reform you have got to try to carry the whole country with you. You, therefore, want to have a number of people in all parties who will have had the experience of going into details on this matter, and I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it does make a very great deal of differ-once when one has had experience and the opportunity to grapple with these problems. We on this side of the House decided that we would take our share in the work of this Committee. We did not take the primrose path of irresponsible criticism and abstention. That is not very fruitful, though perhaps the action of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) might encourage Indian people to believe that the gulf between East and West was not as great as was thought if they saw non-co-operation on both sides. We have not taken that line.
We consider that, having been sent here to do the work of the House of Commons, it is our duty to take our share of that work. We shall take our line on that basis, and we shall hope to co-operate fruitfully with others wherever possible without departing from principle. We feel that essentially in this House we have Government and Opposition. While we are not standing out and saying that we will not play because we have not got all we want, we should like to register our protest, because we believe that the Opposition, although small in numbers in this House and the other place, represents a big body of opinion in the country, a body which may before long return a Government into power in this country. That Government will have to deal with the Indian question. Any Government that is in power will have to face that situation. We should have liked to have a greater representation. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties and the courtesy with which he has always met us. We leave aside as a domestic matter for the other side the question whether there should be Conservatives, National Liberals or Liberal Nationals or National Labour, or any section that composes the majority party, and we merely register our protest on behalf of the official Opposition that we think we should be more fully represented.

4.17 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the word "Sixteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "Twelve."
After the very able piece of pleading —almost special pleading—of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, it is rather difficult to intervene now because he did not refer so much to the Members of this House as to the general composition of the Committee. I do not think that it is seemly for us to discuss which Members should be on it, but I should like to take exception to the concluding part of the speech on behalf of some of my hon. Friends and myself who have put this Amendment down. We have not taken part at all in these Indian discussions, but we belong, I presume, to that little group to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, whose views are still locked up in the secret recesses of their own intellects.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if the Amendment is moved now, any general discussion will be ruled out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: There will be no difference between the discussion on the Motion and the discussion on the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I was saying that those hon. Friends of mine and I who are moving to delete the names of the Government from the Committee have not been associated with any of the agitation which has been going on. I saw on the Order Paper on Saturday that a similar course struck the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which showed me that there was something in the point which we wanted to bring before the House. Needless to say, I hope the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, will acquit me in thinking that I am in any way at personal variance with him or of his friends on the Front Bench, or that we entertain any feelings of animosity with regard to them. I suggested at Question Time a few weeks ago what the Government's faithful ally the "Times" called a curious suggestion, of which the right hon. Gentleman did not think very much. I suggested that we might have gone back to the practice of selecting
members of the committee by ballot. That was the old practice of the House. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman did not know that, but it was a custom up to comparatively modern times considering the length of time that Parliament has existed. It has saved many difficulties and it would probably have produced a much better Committee. The value of my question, if any, was to extract from the right hon. Gentleman some answer, which he gave as a matter of fact, in regard to the kind of Committee which he had in mind on the 20th March. He said:
I am most anxious that it should he impartial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1933; col. 5, Vol. 276.]
On that I was thoroughly satisfied, but is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that this Committee is impartial? Obviously not, as he does not reply. Whatever merits this particular Committee may have, no one in his wildest moments could accuse it of impartiality. He said that his first idea had been a small committee of impartial people and that he had found that very difficult to find. I do not know on what principle the original Simon Commission was selected, but my recollection serves me well when I recall that when the names were announced everybody was very struck at the skilful way in which the Government and the Opposition had managed to find certain Members of both Houses who had no known views on the subject which they were to investigate, but in the judgment of each one of whom the House as a whole had ample confidence. I find it hard to believe that the Parliament of 1931 is worse equipped than the 1924 Parliament in that respect. I cannot help thinking that a little more effort along those lines might have been tried with successful results. The other possibility which the right hon. Gentleman referred to was the Standing Committee procedure, but that is not really relevant to this issue.
When the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech told us that Members of both Houses were going to be on this Committee and were not going to vote on the Government or party ticket and were not going to be at the beck and call of Whips, had anyone in their wildest moments thought they would? That is not the way in which Select Committees
work. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not been on one. Many hon. Members have been on Joint Select Committees. I have myself, and to suppose that Whips or Government or party tickets play any part is entirely wrong. What does come in is the question of preconceived notions in regard to the Measures which are being discussed. That is the point over which the right hon. Gentleman skated—if I may use such a word—rather lightly. The only reasonable way, if you cannot have a committee in which all the people are presumably impartial, is to try the principle of equal thirds where you have one-third of the members supporting what is to be proposed, one-third definitely against, and one-third neutral. It would then be up to the right and left of the Committee to try and persuade the Middle body to adopt their views.
In the particular Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing there are four Members of the Government, and we suggest that they should withdraw their names. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that he would be pleased to withdraw, from which I gather that he has had more committee work in the last two or three years than has ever fallen to the lot of any man; and right well has he done it. I do not say that the result has been satisfactory, but, so far as attention to the work is concerned, it has been as assiduous and as correct as we should expect from him. But does he not remember that a great deal of the trouble in the minds of many people over the original Government of India Measure was the very fact that the Secretary of State and the Viceroy evolved the scheme before it came to Parliament? Are we to have a repetition of that? The late Lord Chelmsford and the late Mr. Montagu produced something and got it through Parliament with a very much smaller Committee, which included seven Members of this House and only one Member of the Government. It is suggested that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must be on the Committee because all the members except one of the Simon Commission are members of the Committee. That is an argument as far as it goes, but how often is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ever likely to attend the Committee? I do not want to make any rude
remarks about anyone, but we know that in the pressure of public business Disarmament and Geneva render it practically impossible for the right hon. Gentleman ever to come to the House. We have the most fleeting visions of him, and to think that he is going to spend morning after morning engaged in a committee of this kind is preposterous.
As a matter of fact, I could build up my own case on his name, because what I would like to see done, and what I am sure a lot of hon. Members would like to see done, is to remove the Members of the Government from the Committee and let them have exactly the same status as the Indian gentlemen who are coming over here. The right hon. Gentleman cannot object to that, because all along, in every speech lie has made, he has always told us of the value and importance of the co-operation of the Indians who are coming over. Some people were rather doubtful about that, but he is not, and he has stressed it time and time again. Indeed, in the Motion the Committee is to be given power to call people into consultation, and why should not they call into consultation Members of the Government as they desire? Then, at any rate, there would not be that huge block of opinion which must support the scheme in the White Paper. It is the Government's own scheme. You cannot imagine, if it ever came to a vote in the Committee, that the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Education or any of the other Ministers would solemnly vote against it.
The Government are in the proportion of six to 32—an enormous proportion in the Committee, which will be the jury in this case; and then at the end the Government have got to judge on the merits of the report of the Committee. Quite apart from India or anything else, I cannot believe that it is right of Parliament to set up any committee on any subject in which there is that kind of weightage. I see the value of the experience and knowledge—I would be the last person to decry that—of the lady, the gentlemen and the Noble Lords who are being invited to serve on the Committee. But the trouble is that they have almost too much experience, if that is possible, because they do not represent, they cannot represent as a whole, the general opinion of this House. There is one thing about which I heard a lot when the House
first met. It was about the splendid body of new young Members who were going to co-operate in the work of this Parliament. The Lord President was one of the most eloquent on that point, and quite rightly, but where are the young Members or even the new ones. There is only one new one on the Committee. I do her the courtesy of saying that she is a young Member, of course; common politeness would not have let me do anything else; and I acknowledge the charming way in which she has addressed us on many occasions. On the other hand, the House, and I am sure she would be the first to say that it was a pity that there are not some other new young Members on a body of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman's case, based on those figures and statistics, rested largely on the proportions of political opinion, weightage to the Opposition, and so on; but we can look at the 16 Members of this House who are suggested for this committee from a different point of view, and get a very different weightage or different emphasis. First, there are the four Members of the Government. It is their scheme; they are for it. Then we get the three Members of the official Opposition who have, as we have been told, consented to do the work. We know that they will be for the scheme as far as it goes, only objecting to it because it does not go far enough, but they are sufficiently realist politically to take the little they can get instead of holding out for the great deal which they know they will not get out of this House. To that extent we now get seven Members committed to the scheme. The representative of the Liberal party was a member of one of the Round Table Conferences, and to that extent is personally interested in the scheme, which he helped to develop in its earlier stage. That makes eight out of the 16–50 per cent.—committed to the scheme. Next we have the Noble Lord who was a member of the last Round Table Conference. That makes nine. Then we have the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who was chairman of one of the committees, and is not very likely to be very much against this scheme. That is 10. Then we have the hon. Lady, who was a signatory of the Franchise Committee. She said the other day in this House that the trouble
about this scheme was that it did not go far enough in that direction. She, like the Labour party, would accept the less as she cannot get the greater.
We are getting on now, Mr. Speaker. The committee is not quite what the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I hope that in what I am saying I am not being personal. I am merely going on published statements and speeches made in this House; I have nothing to do with the private opinions of people. Then we have the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who supported the scheme in this House the other day in a very brilliant speech. We are left now with only four out of 16; 75 per cent. of the committee are what one might call definitely Government weightage. [Interruption.] I can take away the word "Government," and will say they are weightage for the scheme so far as it goes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to that. He does not. Well, I give him up. Of the four other Members with whom we are left, two of them frankly represent opposition to the scheme, that is admitted; another is my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), who is there because he was a Simon Commissioner. I would not say he was very enthusiastic for the scheme judging by the speech he made the other day. We are left finally with the light hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who is, so far as I can detect, the only impartial person. He has made no statement at all on this subject. Two hon. Gentlemen, one representing the English Universities and the other a division of Manchester, are frankly in opposition, they have made speeches in that sense. The only person who has not made a speech is my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. Therefore, he is the "impartial neutral representative," as the Secretary of State said, of that great body of opinion in the Conservative party, and he is a very good representative of that opinion.
I would stress the point that we cannot discuss the Members of the Committee from the House of Lords in a matter like this, we really cannot. We are concerned only about our own nominations. The House of Lords may choose a very different committee after Debate than what is proposed, and we cannot discuss them. I hope I have not
given any indication of the views of myself or of my hon. Friends on the Indian question, because I did not intend to, but if we look at this Committee impartially there is more or less of a weightage in favour of the Government scheme in the proportion of 75 to 25. If we take away the four Ministers we do reduce that proportion. At the same time the Committee would not be deprived of their advice; they could call them in consultation every day if they liked. Further, the Government would be less likely to be in a false position at the end of the proceedings supposing the Committee recommended something which the Government did hot like. What is to be the position of the six Ministers—six out of 32 who are on the Committee—in that case? It is going to be a very difficult task for them to have to persuade their colleagues back along the path on which they have advanced, or make them move further along the path which they have refused to follow. In either case, to ask four Ministers from this House, however able their work in this matter—and we all recognise and admire their steady devotion to this most difficult problem over a long period of time—to serve on this Committee is to ask too much. Therefore, I beg the House to be so good as to accept this Amendment to reduce the number in order that we may have an opportunity to move the consequential Amendments to leave out members of the Government.

4.36 p.m.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: I beg to second this Amendment.
At the outset I would like to say how very much I enjoyed the battle of flowers which we have seen just now. I could not help admiring the way in which the Secretary of State threw bouquets with unerring aim at all the Ministers and ex-Ministers who have been chosen to serve on this Committee. Never before have I had the privilege of witnessing a battle of flowers upon the ice, or even upon thin ice—an engaging and memorable spectacle. I feel emboldened to second this Amendment because I am quite certain that I am not by any means speaking for myself alone. Like the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, ever since I came into this House I have tried to steer clear of juntas, cabals
and groups of all kinds, and I make a point, as far as possible, of refusing to sign proposals which are brought before me pleading for all sorts of innovations; but I do feel that the manner in which the personnel of this Committee has been chosen will be bad for the reputation of the Government in this country and in India.
The other day, when we had a Debate upon the setting up of a Committee on India, I voted in favour of it because it was recommended upon the ground that the Committee would make a thorough, a searching and an impartial examination of the proposal. I was by no means enamoured of the whole of the proposals. Like many others in the House and in the country I was certainly not prepared to condemn them, and I sincerely hope that after their examination I shall not be obliged to condemn them, but I do feel that the searching and impartial examination we were promised would be very much prejudiced by the presence of four Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers upon the body. It will naturally make things rather difficult for the other members of the Committee, for however much the Chairman endeavours to protect them, the weight carried by those Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers is bound to make itself felt, and therefore it seems to me undesirable that they should serve. I take the words of the Secretary of State himself when he said, "After all, it is asking a great deal of a busy man." He went on to refer to the fact that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who is a very hard worker, is occupied in commerce, and that the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) are very hard-working members of the Bar.
I think we are learning to-day that Cabinet Ministers are an unorganised trade or profession, because if they had any union behind them that union would have had a word to say about all this overtime. It is going a little too far to expect a man like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be available for the continual sittings of a Committee of this kind while at the same time looking after the interests of his difficult office and going abroad to wrestle with beasts at Ephesus—well, not exactly that, perhaps, but argue with delegates from all parts
of the world at Geneva and other European centres. I think I have said enough to show how very strongly I feel on this point. I am jealous of the reputation of the Government, and I think they should avoid every appearance of partiality, and I feel that what they propose would not be keeping faith with those in this House who still have open minds and want to see the proposal properly examined. It would certainly have a very much better effect throughout the country and the Empire and in India if this Amendment were accepted.

4.41 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: In rising to offer a few remarks to the House I would like to assure hon. Members that it was only after the very deepest searching of heart that I felt it impossible for me to serve on this Committee. I will briefly give my reasons for that attitude. I confess that I came here hoping to hear from the Secretary of State some really adequate reasons for the personnel which we are asked to vote upon this afternoon, and I think it will be very difficult for anyone to feel satisfied after the explanation we have heard. When he quoted a vote in the Division Lobby on a Private Member's Motion as representing a decision of this House, I must remind him that the Motion which I moved on that occasion was in favour of the Simon Commission's Report, with certain reservations as to law and order temporarily. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) invited the House, I thought with the co-operation of the Whips, to go into the Lobby with him not against my Motion but in order that there should be no decision at that time. That was perfectly clear, and I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was hardly fair to quote that as a vote by the House of Commons—with over 200 Members of the Conservative party absent—in endorsement of the White Paper.
It was only when I was convinced that the Committee must be overwhelmingly committed to the Government proposal, and that any Member of our very small and almost negligible minority thereon could have no opportunity of deflecting the Government from their main purpose, that I very reluctantly decided that
it was impossible for me to accept the invitation to join the Committee. I regret this the more because for nearly 30 years during which I have followed a certain course I have in consequence found myself on repeated occasions in conflict with His Majesty's Government, and I did hope two years ago that all these strivings on my part had now come to an end and that I had come to a time when I could sing a political Nunc Dimittis. But this question is one which seems to me to be greater than any issue which has ever tested us, except perhaps that of August, 1914.
When I was invited—and I cordially admit the honour which the Secretary of State did me—to join this Committee, I felt that I was in a very similar position to one which I can recall very early in the War in 1914, when I was a young company-commander. I happened to be with two private soldiers carrying out the very ordinary duty of examining German wire. It was a very dark night, and we bumped into a working party of Germans numbering about 40. If I had been merely a brave man, I suppose I should have rushed and endeavoured to slay one of those Germans, with almost suicidal results to myself; in other words, I should have joined the German select committee. I should also have been imperilling the lives of my two comrades. Some hon. Members may say that it was cowardly, but very discreetly I decided that if I was going to fire another shot in the War the thing to do was to get away as quickly as possible to an entrenched position, and I took my comrades with me.
It seems perfectly obvious, that on a Committee where there is such an overwhelming majority against those who hold my views, I should no longer be able to fire a shot with any effect on a question of such great moment, and that I should be entirely muzzled from endeavouring to put the case before the people in the country, on account of the fact that one would naturally be precluded from doing so by joining a Committee of this character. When I learned what was to be the complexion of the Committee, I confess to being staggered. I saw at once that, with the exception of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I should be absolutely alone, among 16 or 17 persons, in holding the
view that you should not abdicate central government and should at the same time maintain the power of law and order in the provinces. I would remind the House that there was to be not one man representing the great business interests of this country in India, such as the industries of Lancashire and elsewhere.
I am rash enough to suggest that probably if hon. Members had been asked a fortnight ago how this Committee would be composed, nine out of 10 would have replied "Well, they contemplate a Committee of about 24 in all, with a majority, of course, of 10 supporting the Government policy of self-Government at the Centre, as against seven who believe in the continuance of British rule at the Centre in India and at least seven —who are not strongly committed to either policy." As has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), the House expected to see some middle body of opinion from those who had not been committed one way or the other. Instead, there are only two, representing the view which is held not by a few but by a very large number of hon. Members in this House, and which I claim to represent, and one the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), who is supporting the Simon Commission pure and simple, and who slightly varies his view from that of myself, and of some of my hon. Friends, with regard to law and order.
We have heard it suggested that possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) also holds views against the policy of abandoning rule at the Centre. I could hardly believe that if the right hon. Gentleman, who is an ex-Secretary of State for India, had held any strong views on this subject, he would have kept silence all this time. He does not hesitate to express views, inconveniently sometimes, as was shown a week ago. I am convinced that had he had strong views on this subject he would have found an opportunity of warning the country, if he had thought that such a warning was necessary. What are the rest of the Committee? There are three right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen representing the Official Labour party. They go even further than the policy which they bequeathed to His Majesty's Government. Then there is the repre-
sentative of the independent Liberals. That is four. Already my right hon. Friend and I would have been in a minority of two to one. I am not suggesting that this is going to be a question of votes all through, but I am trying to get the degree of opinion to which people are committed, if they are committed.
The calculation so far leaves nine others, every one of them pledged, in spite of what the Secretary of State said. If I understood him rightly, he said that there were only 10 Members of the whole Committee of both Houses who could really be described as pledged. I say that there are nine others, every one in this House, pledged either to the federal plan or to ultimate abdication of British Government at the Centre in India, two of whom also served on the Indian Committee—the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who was a Round Tabler, and the chairman of the Indian Committee. If I understand his speech, he has come off the fence and is definitely committed to the Government proposals. Everyone knows that they are very estimable gentlemen of very high character, and nobody is questioning their desire to do their very best on the Committee from every point of view. We know that they will do so. Nevertheless, if a man has been devoting his time to a cause for two years and produces a White Paper which is brought before Parliament, it is almost too much to ask, unless he is an archangel, that he will not consistently and continually support those policies in the future. They are sincerely convinced, there is no doubt about that, but I think that a lot of people in the Conservative party would be inclined to say that they are rather among the intellectuals and the Kerenskies of the party who believe that in this post-War era one can settle so many questions by setting up committees or holding conferences, and by giving every imaginable type of person a vote.
Can we look to the House of Lords for any redress? I know that I am not allowed to discuss their personnel, but I have taken a little trouble to make inquiries, and I think that I know the views of most of the Noble Lords concerned. Nobody could claim that there are more than three, or possibly more than four, who hold the view that Britain should stay definitely governing India at the
centre. If that is so, to bring the House of Lords into the picture does not help the situation, but it shows that in that House the position is very similar to the position in this House.
I attended the Blackpool Conference of the Conservative party last autumn. There I heard the admirable speech of my Noble Friend Lord Lloyd, and anyone who was there on that occasion will bear me out when I say that, while he was speaking, the whole conference shared his views. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, got up and made an excellent speech, as he always does, and he pleaded for a Select Committee. The same thing happened at the Central Council which met in London, where there was a very close vote. I think the majority was only 24—I am not sure—and I think that there were 25 seats on the platform. The Secretary of State on both those occasions spoke very fairly to the assembly. He said: "Do not make my task more difficult." We had all been cheering him a minute or two before for his administration, and our good will was with him. He said words to this effect: We ate going to do an exceptional thing; we are going to set up a Joint Select Committee of the Lords and Commons, in order that this question may be referred to them. You could almost have heard the sigh of relief that went throughout that conference, when he uttered those words. Those innocent people did not know that he was going to set up a Joint Select Committee with a majority of five or six against the views about which they were so anxious. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he really thinks he could have carried the vote on either of those occasions if the people present had realised how heavily the scales were to be weighted against their views, and how very far from impartial this committee was to be.
I have only one or two words more to say to the Secretary of State. I think he misunderstood me, and I did not take the opportunity of replying to him in the Press, with regard to my letter and to my failure to join the committee. I said in my letter:
I would remind you that the present House of Commons was elected for certain definite purposes and no single Member is elected with a mandate to abandon British
rule in India, and this fact I should have thought would have caused His Majesty's Government to take special pains to see that at least 45 per cent. of the Select Committee should represent those who believe that India can be preserved for the Imperial Crown and that reforms should be instituted step by step as indicated in the Government of India Act.
The Secretary of State replied:
I could not for a moment accept your contention that you and your friends are entitled to 45 per cent. of the representation.
The Secretary of State missed my point. I did not say for one moment that we represented 45 per cent. of the hon. Gentlemen of this House, but I ask him, how does he know that we do not represent the majority of the people in the country when the Government have taken no steps whatever to consult the electorate? Even by his own test, which he took this afternoon, his arithmetical test, what representation is he giving to those 200 Members of the Conservative party who, so far, have not expressed themselves definitely one way or the other? Are they not entitled to some representation? The right hon. Gentleman has from the first admitted, in regard to the group of which I am a Member, that we are entitled to some representation, small and inadequate in my humble submission, but surely 200 Members who have given no views on this subject have a greater right to be represented, and they ought to be represented by at least six Members of this House if the committee is to be truly representative in every direction.
Again, taking that test, may I ask him if the views of the Members of another place are in any way representative of the Members of that House on the same question. If we take the test proposed by himself, I think that it will be found that it is quite impossible to regard this committee as impartial. He further stated in his reply to me that he could not accept the view
that it is only you and they who believe that India can be preserved for the Imperial Crown.
Why did I deliberately insert those words? I can explain very briefly. In forming this committee we want to know what the Members' views are. The reason was that I had listened with dismay, and with the keenest distress, to that portion of the speech of the Lord President of
the Council in which he used these words:
I decided, after mature reflection, that if we went forward we might save India to the Empire, but, if we did not, that we should lose her."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1933; col. 1130, Vol. 276.]
My hon. Friends and I are in absolute conflict with those views. I assumed that those views were shared by the Secretary of State and by those whom he has nominated from the Government. May I now assume, from the Secretary of State's answer, that he repudiates those views? If so, I rejoice. That is a policy of complete and utter defeatism, and there is no mandate for that. I take the opportunity to suggest to the Lord President of the Council that any question of losing India, or of leaving the Government of India at the Centre, because the British Government refuses to yield to agitators, no more represents the views of the Conservative party than the views of the few hon. gentlemen of the Oxford Union represent that great university of 4,000 persons.
These post-War ideas that we have paraded before us ignore the facts which are being realised by practically all other countries. Numerous countries, in their distress, are throwing up strong men to meet their emergencies in this post-War world. Some of them may be repugnant in their methods, ideas and measures to us in this country, but we should not forget that those strong men apparently have their nations behind them. They are being supported to the full, and we cannot base our whole policy in this country on declaring that we no longer have the strength to govern India, and that we must lose her anyhow unless we accept these reforms, though we may hold her if we introduce them. That is not the spirit of the country. Even if it were the spirit of the politicians of the country, there is one warning that I want to give. The ex-service men of this country do not believe that that is a right policy, and, when they remember all that they suffered to preserve the Empire, they will be no party to a policy of abdication. It seems to me that the whole of this policy is being forced through without any popular sanction whatsoever, and for this reason I would say, let us have a committee of reasonable proportions, and let us do what we can, even at this late hour, to see that
it is more representative of the differences of opinion in this House.

5.1 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: As one of those who declined the invitation to serve on the Committee, I would like to give the House very shortly my reasons for doing so. I do not share, and did not share, the surprise of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that this was a packed Committee. To my mind it was inconceivable that the Government really intended to have an impartial Committee on this question, and I very much regret that the Secretary of State for India should have used words which undoubtedly led a great many people, in this House and outside it, to think that that was the Government's policy. When one realises the amount of labour that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, and other Members of the Government have bestowed on this subject, it must surely be obvious to everyone that they are absolutely convinced that this is the right policy in regard to India, and, therefore, they must feel it to be their duty to carry this policy through by every means in their power. After the Round Table Conferences and negotiations, and the steps which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have taken, it is impossible to regard their attitude from any other point of view. Therefore, personally, I do not wish to make any complaint at all that this is a packed committee. It appears to me to be perfectly consistent with the course that the Members of the Cabinet have pursued in regard to this matter, although I agree that it is at variance with some of the assurances that were given from time to time.
The only thing that I should like to say to the Secretary of State about it is that I think he is overdoing it a little bit, and I was amazed to hear him express the confident opinion that at least half the Conservative Members of this House are whole-heartedly in favour of the White Paper policy. I do not believe that that represents the facts at all. I also think he is entirely mistaken in regarding the declared opponents of the White Paper policy as numbering 42 or 43. If he studies the two Division lists, he will find that they contain by no means the same names. For instance, I voted
against the Government in the first Division, because I felt that it was one of those Divisions which one was not morally justified in shirking; but, being a Member of the House who has no desire to divide against the Government more than I can possibly help, I did not support the second Motion, because I thought it was unnecessary to take a Division on the question; and there were a good many other Members in the same sort of position. But there were a great many more Members who abstained from both Divisions, simply through a desire not to vote against the Government, but who agreed in their whole-hearted condemnation of the White Paper policy. I should have thought that the Secretary of State for India was well aware of that fact. Therefore, when I was invited, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) declined, to serve on this committee, I felt that there was no hope of anyone who was entirely against the Government's policy doing any good on such a committee except in regard to detailed points, and in that connection I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), who has infinitely greater knowledge of the details of Indian administration than I have, would do very much better work on the committee. It was simply for that reason that I declined.
Those of us who oppose the Government's White Paper policy are opposing it on a great principle. We do not wish to fight a ding-dong battle in a committee, to obstruct as the Irish obstructed the Measures of the Conservative Government, or as the Conservative party obstructed the Home Rule Bill. That would not be our plan. We wish to carry the issue to the country. We feel that all that this Select Committee is doing is to hammer out the policy of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India—that the personnel of the Committee is such that it can have no other function. It is composed primarily of the people who are responsible for that policy, and to ask them to look at the thing impartially at this stage is surely only an absurdity. It is simply a stage which the Government are taking quite properly from their point of view. I make no complaint; they are merely anxious to see that their plan, which they have carefully thought out, is polished
up and perfected in its details, and improved as far as they can get it improved. I make no complaint of that at all, but I, for one, will have neither part nor lot in it.
I believe that the plan is a defeatist plan, a plan to give up responsibilities at the centre which it is not right for us to give up. I believe that they are responsibilities which the people of this country do not wish us to give up, and I am sure that the great majority of the Conservative party do not wish us to give them up. But the steam roller has started; the Select Committee is going forward with the same irresistible force; the sausage machine is at work, and in due time we shall be presented with the result of its labour. We all know now that the result of this Joint Committee can but be a perfecting and an elaboration of the White Paper policy, and, therefore, no Member of this House can now be in doubt that, unless those who think strongly on this question do what they can to defeat that policy, they will lose their opportunity before very long. The Government are irrevocably committed to this tremendous revolution in India. They believe it to be the right policy, and they will show that they are determined to carry it through by every means within their power. I shall support my hon. and gallant Friend in the Division Lobby, as a part of my general protest against the Government's policy, but I ask everyone in the House and outside it to realise the road down which we are now going. Let us all realise what are the issues that are at stake.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I wish to say a word or two in support of my hon. and gallant Friend. I endorse every word that he has uttered, and could, were it necessary, say a great deal in extension and support of what has fallen from him. I wish, however, to direct my short observations to that part of the Secretary of State's speech in which he laid down the principles upon which a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament should be constituted. He detailed at some length the machinery which should be adopted so as to give proper and full representation, not only of the political parties in the House, but of the groups within those political parties. That proposal was in my judgment a sound one,
but I will go so far as to say that, even if the committee were properly constituted on the principles laid down, and even if it were an impartial committee—which I totally and absolutely deny—it would not, even then, comply with the necessities of the case, nor would it meet the demands of the country. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has truly said, the present House of Commons was not returned in order to deal with this matter, and no committee representing the political complexion of parties, or groups within parties, within this House, can in any sense represent the feeling of the British public outside. I deny entirely the right of the right hon. Gentleman to ask the support of the House for this Committee on the basis of the theory that the political parties in this House have a right, as the House is at present constituted, to determine this issue by means of any committee, even though it were an impartial committee. Of course, however, the case does not rest upon that; it rests upon the absolute condemnation which has been so effectively placed before the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), and on what has fallen from the lips of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. As far as I am concerned, I regard the constitution of the Committee, as it has been submitted to the House, as an insult, not only to the intelligence of the Members of the House, but also to the intelligence of the people in the country outside.

5.13 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The composition of this Committee is really of vital importance from a point of view that has not yet been mentioned in the Debate. Anyone who took part in the Morley-Minto reforms, or in the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, and who remembers the form in which those Bills were presented to the House, must realise that it is impossible, or, if not impossible, exceptionally difficult, to draft any sort of Amendment to Bills of that kind when once they are brought before the House. All the details as to the franchise, communal representation, the distribution of seats, reservation—all these details are inevitably reserved for rules and regulations which are enacted after the Bill
has become law. They do not come before Parliament. Merely the general principle is put before Parliament, and the details rest with the Secretary of State. If, therefore, the House is to discuss the details, if it is to express its views on those details, it must be before this Joint Committee, and, therefore, the composition of the Joint Committee should he such as represents the House as a whole, and not the Government in particular. I differ from the view of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that it is not possible or practicable any more to fight this Bill in Committee—

Viscount WOLMER: I do not want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to misrepresent me. I did not say that, and I did not mean that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand that the Noble Lord's refusal to serve on the Committee was due to the fact that he thought that improvement was impossible.

Viscount WOLMER: May I make my position clear? I did not wish to obstruct in the Committee, or to take part in deliberations on a scheme with which I was fundamentally out of sympathy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I agree with the Noble Lord as to the desirability of rejecting the White Paper, but I asked the Secretary of State to put me on the Committee. [A laugh.] Why should people laugh? It is such a misconception. Getting on to a Committee is not necessarily a favour.

Sir PATRICK FORD: Some of us laughed at the same view being arrived at in such diametrically opposed ways.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The views are absolutely identical, but it is a question of how they are put into operation. The Secretary of State, in his kindly reference to me, pointed out that I was Athanasius contra mundum and he could not make room for Athanasius. There would be something to be said for it if it were not for the fact that in the end Athanasius proved right. I cannot help thinking even now that you might have Athanasius not so entirely in a minority if the Government Whips were taken off,
and if the House decided whom they would have on the Committee. I feel certain that, if we could vote freely today, we should get a better Committee.

Viscount WOLMER: Athanasius was a member of the Council, too.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wish I had remembered that point. In that case, no doubt, I should have been one of the select and favoured few. The point of view that the ordinary Member of this House represents to-day is not, I believe, overwhelmingly represented on that Committee. You have put on the Committee people who have taken part in the past stages. They were on the Simon Commission or the Lothian Committee, or on the Round Table Conference. Those people have not merely made up their minds on the question. They have a vested interest in the particular point of view. Those people who are on the Committee are not subject to pressure from the Whips, but they are subject to the ordinary feelings of human nature. When you have an overwhelmingly strong Government, it is much easier to please that Government and it is much easier to anticipate the reward of ordinary political life. I can see in this Select Committee quite a number of prospective Viceroys and Governors and Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State. This is the first step on the political ladder and, therefore, the Government not merely have on their side the fact that most of the people who have been appointed have already made up their minds and made them up for the Government scheme, but you also have the inevitable result of political life in driving Members to share in the Government point of, view. It would be much better if we had a Committee drawn by ballot or a Committee drawn, as Standing Committees are, by the Committee of Selection, which would make it less of a new Government Department and more of a representation of opinion in the country.
The real point at issue is this: The Secretary of State has said over and over again that there will be an opportunity before the committee of raising all points in detail, and that he will listen to every point of view and see that, if
it is an improvement, it is embodied in the scheme. There is a chance of improvement in detail. Will he take evidence? Will Members of the House who have a point of view which they wish to put forward have an opportunity of putting it before the committee? Secondly, while it is possible, I hope, to improve the Bill in detail, will it be possible to make any modification in it on the real issue before us, whether there shall be this transfer of powers at the centre, which, to my mind is such a reactionary step at present? I do not think there will be much division of opinion in the House on the matter of provincial autonomy. On that side we all agree. The real issue is the transfer at the centre to what I maintain to be a most reactionary body, a permanently Conservative organisation. Shall we possibly be allowed to persuade the Government on that point and to fortify the views that I expressed the other day on the main issue, that the people in India itself do not want this transfer at the centre to this Conservative organisation?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the right hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the merits of the proposals in the White Paper. We cannot discuss those on this Motion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is the real issue which the committee has to decide, the major issue of whether we are definitely committed to the whole scheme of transfer at the centre. It is on that point that the composition of the committee becomes vitally important. We read to-day in the "Times" the following interview with Mr. Gandhi. It is evidently curtailed very largely, but I wish the Secretary of State and the House to observe what Mr. Gandhi is reported as saying:
If peaceful conditions for the evolution of independence were possible, I would use influence with my friends of the Congress to induce them to agree to a suspension of strife and to the operation, after examination, of Provincial Constitutions as, in my opinion, they may be a truer test of the real transference of power.
That emphasises the point that there you have the best of liberally-minded opinion in India moving in the same direction as most people in this House, that whereas there will be unanimous agreement on provincial autonomy on the lines of the
White Paper, you will have the most determined opposition both in this country and in India to the setting up of this new body involving Princes and millionaires.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is still transgressing my Ruling and dealing with the merits of the proposal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is very difficult to distinguish. The real point of objection to the present composition of this joint committee is the fact that they are apparently prejudging that major issue, whereas the Secretary of State has repeatedly told us that there will be opportunities on the committee to put every point of view and to raise every issue, even the major issue, of whether change at the centre is inevitable and is part of their definite scheme or not. What I would press is that the committee be modernised so as to represent more fully the opinion of this House and possibly more the opinion of the country, and less the official view of those who have made up their minds.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: It is remarkable that we should have heard charges of bad faith against the Secretary of State being bandied about. He has been subjected to much criticism in India, but I do not think that particular accusation has ever been brought against him before. I cannot quite understand why so much resentment should be expressed by Members at the composition of this Select Committee. I have followed the question with some care, but I have never understood the Secretary of State to make a promise that the Government's considered policy was to be referred to some committee consisting of people who have not made up their minds upon it, and that the Government were to accept the decisions of that Committee as binding upon them. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) constantly refers to two domestic meetings of our own party, one at Blackpool and the other in London. It seems to me that he could hardly refer to them more frequently had he been successful in getting the majority of the people present on those two occasions to support his point of view. If I understood the
speeches of the Secretary of State on those occasions rightly, it was that he undertook that the proposal of the Government should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which would carry confidence in the country, and when one sees the array of talent, of experienced administrators, ex-Secretaries of State and ex-Governors, I believe the vast bulk of the people in the country, at any rate, who ask for some reassurance from the Secretary of State will say that that is precisely the kind of Joint Select Committee that they had in mind. They will say there is only one defect in it. They would have desired that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, and possibly even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), who is interrupting me, should have been there in order to express their point of view. It is their failure to accept the invitation that was extended to them which will make a very large number of people in the country who, in the past, have had some sympathy with their point of view, ask whether the diehard section have all the courage to which they have laid claim in the past.
I never expected to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth put forward such strange constitutional theories as that the Government were, in the first place, to invite the two Houses to appoint two Select Committees upon some estimate which they might form of the popularity of certain views in the country. I have always understood that Parliament was a Sovereign body, that it was to Parliament that the Government must look in order to ascertain what representation should be expresesd to various opinions. We are not only told that the Government should consider the alleged popularity of certain opinions in the country, but we are also told that the Government should be willing to set up a Joint Select Committee and submit its fully and carefully considered proposals to a body of that kind and then be prepared to have them amended in principle as well as in detail. I was interested to hear a reference made to the uprising of strong Governments in various countries of Europe. In 1931 the people of this country expressed their desire to have a strong Government.
That is the Government that is in power at the present time, and I rejoice that the Secretary of State and the Government are prepared to carry through the considered proposals which they have put forward in the White Paper.

5.30 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India has told the House that in regard to this very grave question of India he divided the Conservatice party into three groups —those who favoured the policy indicated in the White Paper, those who were definitely opposed to it, and a third group which he described, rather superciliously it seemed to me, as indefinite in number who had not made up their minds or expressed them. Taking both Houses together, he claimed that all their groups, particularly the groups of his critics, were adequately represented. Before passing to speak particularly on the third of the groups of my hon. Friends, I should like to join with those Members who have deprecated considering that the representation given to the various groups here be amalgamated with the representation of similar groups in another place. It is impossible for hon. Members here to know exactly the position of Noble Lords in another place, and we are bound to consider whether the personnel proposed adequately represents the opinions expressed in all parts of this House. I always understood that that is the principle on which Committees in this House are set up, namely, that, as nearly as possible, the Members are nominated to adequately represent different points of view.
I wish to speak on behalf of the third group of Conservative Members. In the first place, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the genesis of this group dates from further back than perhaps he realises. He spoke of the Division in this House on the White Paper in December, 1931, and mentioned that not more than 43 voted with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) against that White Paper. He omitted to mention the fact that over 150 Conservative Members abstained from voting, and I venture to say that that was a portent which deserved to be taken into very serious consideration when we remember that my right hon. Friend the Lord Presi-
dent of the Council had wound up the Debate with an appeal to a party which regarded him with great loyalty, respect and personal affection, to support the Government. It seems to me that the abstention of over 150 Conservative Members on such an occasion was a writing on the wall of which Members of the Government ought to have taken more account than they appear to have done. Then my right hon. Friend twits those Conservative Members with not having expressed their opinion. I would remind him how very little opportunity they have had to do so. In the course of 1932 three committees were sent out to India to examine and report upon matters connected with the Government's proposals. The House was not allowed any opportunity of discussing the reports of those Committees when they were presented. We had no opportunity of debating the proposals of the Government between December, 1931, and the 22nd February, 1933, when three hours were devoted to the subject on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sorry, is not in his place, because this is rather an important point, if he does not remember that, in February, before the Debate upon the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend, representations were made to him by members of this group which not only consisted of questions to try to elucidate further information as to the intentions of the Government on matters connected with their proposals, but also contained expressions of grave anxiety with regard to several proposals which had been discussed at the Round Table Conference. Further, the representations included also definite recommendations with regard to several matters. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is hardly in a position to say that this group of Conservative Members has not expressed any opinion upon this tremendous question. I also would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was not informed at the time these representations were made, that those for whom the deputation spoke were considerably more numerous than those who had voted against the Government with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, from what he learned in February, was bound to have regard to the fact that, in addi-
tion to those who had openly shown their views in the Division Lobby, there was a larger number of Conservative Members showing great anxiety and making definite recommendations to the Government in regard to this question.
But when it came to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth, it is true that Members of this group did not go into the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Member. That is very easily explained by the fact that the deputation, as I have said, had not only made recommendations and expressed opinions, but had asked for more information, and they felt that it was, therefore, only right to get the full information for which they had asked, namely, to wait until the White Paper was published before definitely recording a vote against the Government, or in favour of other proposals. Therefore, the fact that there was only a small Division for the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend is of little account. The appearance of the White Paper, with nothing in it to set at rest the anxieties which we had expressed, and nothing done to meet the recommendations which we had made, has in no wise diminished the number of Members who made those representations to my right hon. Friend before the 22nd February. But, again, those Members have had little opportunity to speak. We had, it is true, a three days' Debate when many Members of the group put down their names to speak, but in view of the great number of Members wishing to take part in this very important Debate, only three or four Members of this group were able to make their voices heard in the Debate. Certainly all four showed great anxiety, and three out of the four I think showed very little hesitation in the way in which they expressed their anxiety and their views in general. However, I would point out that, owing to the form in which the Government cast their Motion, there was, fortunately, no need for this group, or, for that matter, the group associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, to move any Amendment, or to suggest any addition to the Government Motion. Therefore, again, this group had no opportunity of showing, as a whole, their views.
When we come to examine the representation which this group is to be given on the Joint Select Committee from the
House of Commons, we find that out of three definite critics of the White Paper only one of them represents this group. I think that I am right in saying that two of them, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) are both Members of the Committee associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping—the India Defence Committee. Only my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) represents what has been indicated to the right hon. Gentleman as a very much larger group than those who are members of the India Defence Committee. The group, though mainly Conservative, includes some representation of Liberal and Labour opinion. My observations lead me to believe that this group, and the group associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, together account for considerably more than one-third of the Members of the whole House. I submit that the representation that should have been given to all the critics of the scheme of the Government taken together should at least be five out of the 16 members whom it is proposed to select. The group of which I have spoken should have not less than three members in addition to the two from the India Defence Committee. It is all the more extraordinary that my right hon. Friend has nominated only three critics from the House of Commons, when we are led to understand from the letter written by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth to the right hon. Gentleman, declining the invitation sent to him, that originally four critics had been invited to serve. I understood from the letter of my hon. and gallant Friend that he objected to the fact that only four out of 17 Members altogether would hold the view which he holds.

Sir H. CROFT: Only two Members holding the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and myself were selected from the House of Commons as far as I remember.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I read from the letter of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
I gather that there will be four members out of 17 selected in the House of Commons who are presumed to be in opposition to the Government's proposals in regard to Indian reform.

Sir H. CROFT: I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) might be presumed to be sympathetic to the views of those who were opposed to the proposals of the Government, and the four included the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan). There were only two absolutely opposed to law and order being transferred in the Provinces and abdication at the centre.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have not been treating the subject in any detail but trying to keep within the ruling recently pronounced on the matter. I am referring broadly to those whose attitude is that of criticism towards the proposals of the Government. I certainly gathered from the letter of my hon. and gallant Friend—I may be wrong—that in the beginning my right hon. Friend had invited four who were definitely, or who were believed to be definitely, critics of the proposals to serve on the Committee. I do not know the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). Perhaps my right hon. Friend will inform the House if I am wrong in saying that, independently of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, he originally invited four Members whom he believed to be critical of his policy, whether associated with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping or not, to serve on the Committee. But now, independently of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, there are only three. Unless I am wrong in my reading of the letter of my hon. and gallant Friend, the right hon. Gentleman has made a very grave mistake and seems to have sinned against the light, when at the moment, when two representative Members who have shown themselves to be critics of his proposals refused to serve on his Committee because they considered that the representation was inadequate, he cuts down the representation of critics to three. It seems to be an extraordinary step to have taken, if that is the case, but no doubt if I am wrong, my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, or the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House. I think that the representation is extremely inadequate, more especially in regard to the large number of Members who are gravely anxious on this subject but who have not joined the Committee
of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. But I do not think that the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is practical politics. To reduce the Committee to 12 would leave the representatives of this House four fewer than the representatives from the other House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The other place has not taken their decision yet. They might reduce their numbers.

Duchess of ATHOLL: We cannot be sure that the four that would be taken off the Committee in the other place would make the balance of opinion more fairly representative, and it is difficult to imagine that the other place would find it easy to put off four of the very distinguished gentlemen who have already been announced in the Press as nominated to the Committee. I think the more satisfactory way of proceeding would be to substitute, as is suggested in other Amendments, the names of two Members who are known to be critics of the Government policy for the two junior Ministers who have been nominated. I am sure that the two latter hon. Members would acquit me of any desire to be discourteous. I regard both of them as my personal friends. With one of them I did a good deal of work in the last Parliament. This is not a matter of personal views or feelings. We have to think of the fair balancing of the opinion that exists in the House. I feel that the Government's proposals are exceedingly inadequate, and that they will not add to the weight and the authority that the Committee should have.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. MORRISON: There are many hon. Members, especially those belonging to the party to which I have the honour to adhere, who will feel a great deal of sympathy with some of the criticisms that have been made about the character of the Committee. I should like, if I may do so respectfully, to suggest to my hon. Friends that we are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Government's proposals but a question of procedure. And I should like to give reasons why we should not at this stage persist in the Amendment. If we are to have a Joint Select Committee, as has been already decided upon, it would be a great mis-
take if we sent that Committee away to its labour with its authority diminished by any expression of lack of confidence in its composition. It is very hard for any Government in the present unknown state of public opinion on this question to set up any committee that would satisfy all sections of opinion in the House. The peculiar nature of the Motion on which the House has hitherto divided on this question makes it impossible to judge from an inspection of the Division Lists what is exactly the view of the House. When hon. Members suggest that the Committee ought to be more impartial, it appears to me to be very hard to know what is the feeling to which the Government ought to give expression in the composition of the Committee.
May I put my own point of view about the proposals, merely to show the angle from which I am approaching consideration of the question? As a private Member I am profoundly anxious about some of the proposals in the White Paper. My anxiety may arise from ignorance on my part, because I have not had the advantage of the personal knowledge of Indian questions that is enjoyed by some hon. Members. My difficulties may arise from that fact. When the Bill comes before the House, I think that will be the time when every hon. Member must express his opinion on the proposals, in the light of his duty to the country and the Empire. I propose to take all the time that is being offered to me to study this question. It is a question of such size and comprises issues of such great importance that I do not feel in the least apologetic at not being able to make up my mind in five minutes about it. I think, therefore, that we ought to take advantage of the opportunity that is given to us in the setting up of this Committee to inform ourselves more clearly in regard to the matter.
As regards the suggestion that the Committee is not impartial, it is very hard to know what is meant by being impartial, and what the Government's duty is in regard to setting up a Committee to secure impartiality. Impartiality may arise from a nicely balanced set of opinions in which the considerations pro and con are so evenly balanced that the mind is entirely ready to be swept one way or the other. You may also have impartiality from another cause, from blank,
vacant ignorance of the whole question. Some of my hon. Friends who have to-day criticised the Government for weighting the Committee in a particular direction have themselves had the same experience that I have had of being invited to serve on the Committee 'and being compelled for reasons of one sort or another to decline the invitation. If that be so, and I think it is so, what is the Government to do if it cannot get those who oppose definitely these measures to serve on the Committee? If the Government have sent out invitations to those who have been prominent and distinguished in the controversy as critics of the Government, and if those hon. Members have felt it to be their duty to decline the invitation, I cannot see what the Government can do.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Cut down the numbers.

Mr. MORRISON: My hon. and gallant Friend suggests cutting down the numbers. That, to my mind, neglects the fact that this is a Joint Committee and that Noble Lords in another place have to appoint their quota to it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the hon. Member suggest that if the Government suggested to the House of Lords a similar reduction in the numbers from that Assembly, to follow the decision of the House of Commons, they would not agree to that reduction?

Mr. MORRISON: My right hon. Friend mistakes the point that I was making. He has jumped ahead too quickly. My point was this: Suppose we reduce the numbers of the Committee by a Resolution of this House and the Government urge, as my right hon. Friend suggests, that in another place the same 'action be taken. By that reduction the character of the Committee in another place might be vitally altered. I do not know whether hon. Members have considered the personnel which it is proposed to nominate in the other place. If they have done so they will see that in that representation there is no lack of critics. There are those in that personnel who are profound critics, and who have declared themselves to be critics. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we in this House by altering the numbers should leave it open to the Government in another place, by reducing the numbers,
to cut out some of those very important critics who are in the representation from the other place? As this is to be a Joint Select Committee, it would be ill-advised for us, in my humble view, at this stage to alter the numbers, because that action would bring in its train the great risk of deterioration in the proportion of critics on the Committee from the other place. I see nothing about which anyone occupying my viewpoint of scepticism and suspicion about the proposals can complain in the composition of the Joint Select Committee proposed from the other place, and I would rather have things as they are.
There is one further point to which I should like to draw attention. The Government having invited well-known and distinguished advocates in this House of views contrary to those of the Government on this question to join the ranks of the Committee, and those gentlemen having refused, what were the Government to do? What was their duty? If they could not get, for the reasons that I have indicated, true impartiality or balancing, they must go for knowledge of the question and experience. This Joint Select Committee is being set up for the purpose of informing this House as to its views upon the Government's proposals. Impartiality may be a sort of mathematical myth which in the circumstances it is impossible to get, and I think we can congratulate ourselves that if the Government have failed to secure impartiality, which is an impossible task, they have at least secured distinction, knowledge and information in the representation from this House on the Committee. In that case let us trust those Members of the Committee who are sent from this House, no matter what they have said in the past and no matter what expressions of opinion they have given.
Some of my hon. Friends say that some of these hon. Members have declared themselves. This India question is a very big question as it impresses me. I have changed my own views several times on it, and I am not by any means in possession of such information that I can now say that I can make a final decision. I think it is perfectly certain that if we approve the Committee as proposed and send them to their labours with the full authority of a unanimous
House of Commons behind it, when they sit down to their labours they will not be deterred from carrying out their duty to the House and the country by any incidents in the past. For my part, I have sufficient faith in those whom it is proposed to put on the Joint Select Committee, because I feel that they will carry out their duties in the best possible way. As impartiality is so difficult to obtain, with the lack of knowledge of what the House is thinking, with the refusal of some of my hon. Friends to join the Committee, I submit that the Government have done the next best thing and have given us a Committee well informed and composed of those who will discharge their duty faithfully in this matter.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall detain the House only for a very few minutes, but I should like to say, in answer to the very excellent and clever speech just delivered by my hon. Friend, that we have heard this tale against voting very often. Time after time we have been been told that there is no real issue, and that this is only a Resolution which commits us to the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech at the farewell Round-Table Conference. Then we have been told: "Wait till you see the White Paper." We have also been told: "Wait till you see the Joint Select Committee." Now my hon. Friend says the real moment will come when the Bill is presented to the House. Meanwhile, things are not standing idle. The whole force of the Government here and in India is used to drive forward their policy. Meanwhile those who, in response to appeals for party loyalty and goodwill have abstained from voting, find themselves damnified when the Select Committee is to be set up, because we are told that only 45 voted and that the others who did not vote are a quantity about which indeed argument may be entertained but upon which no serious or solid assertion may be made. I believe it would have been far better if everyone who had doubts about this question had entered a caveat by their votes, and then they would have been in a position to acquire such representation as would have enabled this Parliament to deal adequately with so very grave a matter.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, has, in his gay and airy way, twitted me with imitating Mr. Gandhi in a policy of non-co-operation. I do not think the House will consider that that was altogether just, but, in so far as it is witty, it is not new wit, because I have seen it many times in the public prints that support the Administration. Is it true? Is it just? The co-operation which Mr. Gandhi refused was a co-operation in administering and working the law of the land; the co-operation which Members who have declined to serve on this Joint Select Committee have refused is a co-operation in making a new law about which they have great doubts, and which they are endeavouring to oppose. There is no sort of comparison between the two cases.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Morrison) has told us that in view of the refusal of some of the pronounced opponents of the Government to sit on the Committee that, as the Government were not able to get impartiality, they have fallen back on knowledge. It was with the Committee before our eyes that we refused to serve upon it. There is no question of the Government saying: "We were going to be impartial, but as some hon. Members will not serve we must make a new Committee which will not aim at impartiality; we are relieved from our pledge of impartiality, and must set up a new committee," when the Committee was set up long before. That argument is not one which should weigh with hon. Members in the Division. I should like very much to have served on the Committee and should have regarded it as an honour to have taken part in the deliberations of a body which contains so many eminent and venerable figures. I would not have allowed any personal consideration or convenience to stand in the way. I do not even say that the representation which the Committee offers to the various groups and parties in the House is in itself unevenly balanced, provided that the Committee had not been swollen to inordinate proportions. Such figures as were discussed, and as have appeared, for the minority representation would not have been, in my opinion, unfair had the Committee been limited to 22; but even then the Government would have had an effective majority. The right hon. Gentleman is
not satisfied with a little of the pudding. He wants the lot. He must overload; he must pile on.
There are four, shall I call them, paid officials of the Government on the Committee compared with two opponents of the Measure; and, in addition, how many more? They have been detailed by various hon. Members this afternoon, five or six, or seven or eight Members, who in one way or another have committed themselves to this policy, who have been brought into the general swim and movement of Government business because they have been openly associating themselves with this policy. The Committee will not give any fair chance of procuring a reasoned reconsideration of the question of principle. It may make improvements in details; and of the very able Members who at the desire of some of my friends are on the Committee one represents an hon. Member who has spent a lifetime in India and one represents, for the first time, the great commercial interests of Lancashire. They will be able to develop those points, but the Committee as constituted gives no Rope of altering the general decision of the Government to set up a Federal Government in India, or what we consider to be tantamount to an abdication of power at the Centre.
The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment pointed out to the Government a very reasonable course which they could have adopted. They could have placed all the Members of the Government they have on their list associated with the Committee, on the same basis as the Indian Delegation which is to come over. That would have been more convenient in the practical working of Government business, and it would have had a further advantage. I do not know whether hon. Members have thought of the enormous difficulties which will arise in regard to the method of consultation with the Indian Delegation. Very dangerous questions of status may arise, questions as to whether they are placed in a derogatory position, and which might cause unnecessary ill-will. But if Ministers of the Crown took the same treatment and were placed in the same position, that danger and difficulty would be removed, and Ministers of the Crown would not be called upon to
attend more than was required by the Committee or more than they desired themselves.
I have not often heard a Debate which has been so completely one-sided as this Debate. Apart from two speeches, no hon. Member except the Secretary of State has spoken in favour of this arrangement. I feel that we are being moved steadily nearer and nearer to the verge of an irrevocable decision. With extraordinary coolness and persistency the Government, month after month and year after year—I have been resisting this now for three years, since I severed myself from my right hon. Friend and his policy—have told us that this is not the time to vote. All of a sudden the time will come when the Government will say: "Here is the report of our impartial committee, a large majority are in favour of it. Look at the expectations which you have aroused in India. You cannot go back now. You have no other course but to go on." That is to deny the House the facilities of debate; it is to deny to the Select Committee the efficacious work which they could have done. I hope that even now the Government will indicate that efforts will be made to remodel the Committee more in accordance with the wishes of the House.

6.7 p.m.

Vice-Admiral G. CAMPBELL: Twenty years ago, when a young lieutenant, I received the First Lord on board; the band played "Rule Britannia," but I did not then ever expect to see the day when I should disagree with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I am one of those Members of the House who has not yet opened his mouth on the subject of India, and I had not intended to do so now except for the fact that I have never before listened to such a succession of speeches with which I have been in entire disagreement. I have hardly heard a speech, except perhaps that of the Secretary of State and that of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Morrison) which, in my opinion, has been of any assistance to India or to this country. The right hon. Member for Epping says that the Debate this afternoon has been one-sided. Some of us have been brought up to deeds rather
than words, and if we do not always speak it does not mean that we do not think. The Secretary of State has had a most difficult task to perform in selecting the Committee and, I think, he has done it in a most excellent fashion. It is a Committee which should meet with the approval of the whole country.
I share the regret that some hon. Members have not seen their way to join the Committee when invited to do so. It it not for me to question their reasons, but I should have thought that those hon. Members with great experience of India would have been doing better service if they had sat on the Committee. I should have thought that the only reason for declining the invitation to serve on one of the mast important committees ever set up in this country would have been lack of knowledge, but that does not apply to any of the right hon. and hon. Members who have been invited to sit on the Committee. It is said that hon. Members who object to the White Paper consider that they will be doing better service to their country by making speeches on platforms in this country and in warning the electors. Personally, I should have been much more convinced if I had seen these right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee, even if they thought it necessary to sign a minority report after having heard all the facts of the case and read all the documents, sonic of which, I presume, will be confidential and cannot be made public. I should have been much more convinced by such a minority report than by going to Queen's Hall and places of that sort and listening to the finest oratory in the world. A large majority of this House supported the Government in December, 1931, when we were all well aware of what was coming.

Sir H. CROFT: Did the hon. and gallant Member put it in his election address?

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: A vote was taken in this House on that occasion and a large majority supported the Government. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that as a result a White Paper would be forthcoming. Quite recently we again supported the Government in setting up this Joint Select Committee, and I do not think that we are doing a great service in trying to insinuate that the committee
is not impartial. The hon. and gallant Memeber for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) asks me if I put it in my election address. Certainly not. The National Government were returned for one purpose. I do not think that India should be brought into our politics; it should be kept outside. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth referred to ex-service men, and asked what they would think of our giving up India. I do not know. The first thing ex-service men look for is for people who will inspire them with confidence, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth is inspiring them with confidence in this Select Committee which the House is being asked to set up. We should see that this committee has the support and confidence of this House. I have far more confidence in my fellow countrymen than some hon. Members, and I intend to maintain that confidence until I am deluded. I ask the House to give this committee their whole-hearted support so that they can have a fair start. We have men who will be impartial, who will be fair, and who will do their best in a difficult task, upon which the future credit of India and the British Empire depend.

6.14 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I cannot allow the slip which the hon. and gallant Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell) has made to pass unnoticed. He was asked whether he referred to the question of India when addressing his constituents at the last General Election, and he said, "Certainly not." Immediately afterwards he said that the National Government were returned for one purpose, which had nothing to do with India. The first point which I desire to make is that the Government have no mandate to set up this committee or any other committee, on this matter. Apart from the speech of the Secretary of State there have been only three speeches to-day in favour of this Motion. I have dealt with the last speech. Of the other two, there was first the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison), who began by saying that it would be a mistake if we launched this committee with any suggestion of lack of confidence in its constitution. Other speakers have said, what is the good of criticising this committee when the right
hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) have declined to serve on it? They seem entirely to have missed the whole point of the criticism.
The point is not with regard to any particular Member serving upon the Committee, but that the Committee as constituted is loaded from a particular point of view; that is to say, without imputing any kind of dishonesty, as none of us would think of doing, to the Secretary of State, whom we all respect, that the men who have for months past been developing a particular point of view cannot change in a few moments and bring up to this House a report on different lines. Without imputing any bad faith, as suggested by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), I say that the Secretary of State, rightly or wrongly, misled not only this House but the country, and especially the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let me give my opinion, and I shall not be without a number who will agree with me. I say that, rightly or wrongly, the Secretary of State has undoubtedly misled not only this House but the country, and especially the Conservative party, as to what the constitution of this Joint Select Committee would be.
As the right hon. Member for Epping has said, we have again and again been told in this House that the time had not arrived to reach a decision, and Members were requested before they made up their minds or decided to vote for the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, or other Motions, to wait until they had had the report of an impartial committee which had gone into the whole matter. Does the Secretary of State suggest that if, at the meetings of the National Union of Conservatives at Blackpool and in London, he had said that the Joint Select Committee to be set up would have a three to one majority in favour of the White Paper, those meetings would have carried the motion they did by a small majority? I ask anyone who was present at those meetings, certainly the last one held in London a few weeks ago, whether, if there had been any suggestion of that kind, the meeting would not have passed the resolution sent up from Epping? There is no question whatever
that the general impression left on the mind of this House and of those meetings and of the country was that the inquiry by the Joint Select Committee would be an impartial one, and that it would be something on which the country could rely in making up its mind.

Mr. MOLSON: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Conservative Secretary of State should take orders from the National Union in the same way as a Socialist Government takes orders from the Trades Union Congress?

Sir W. DAVISON: That is an irrelevant interruption. I was referring to what was the opinion of this great body of men who represented the Conservative party in the country? I did not say anything about the Secretary of State. As a matter of fact the Secretary of State was very anxious to secure their approval. The Select Committee that I would suggest is one which would meet the point of the Government and would be fair. I would nominate the Secretary of State—I see the difficulties of having all these busy men—at any rate three representatives of the Government representing the White Paper, three representing the Indian Defence Committee, and six representatives appointed, as we always appoint committees in this House, by the Committee of Selection. In that way we would have six men who were not committed to any view. We would have the three Government spokesmen urging one thing, three spokesmen of the Indian Defence Committee urging another point of view, and six men appointed by the Committee of Selection who had not expressed their views one way or the other. If we had a report from such a committee the country would have confidence in it, and it would be a report on which the country could rely.

Duchess of ATHOLL: On a point of Order. Before we go to a Division may I ask whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give an answer to the question that I put to him?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer.

Several HON. MEMBERS rose.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: It is a matter of very great regret to me that the voice of Bridgeton should be heard in preference to that of the ancient university of Oxford. That, however, does not lie in my hands, but with Mr. Speaker. I merely rose to say that the hon. Knight who spoke last, the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), was mistaken when he said that there had been only three speeches in favour of the Government's position to-day. I came here with my mind fully made up to vote with those who are protesting against the composition of this committee. I think the committee is not fairly and justly composed. I think that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was perfectly right in staking a claim as representing a very distinct point of view that will not be represented on the Select Committee. But I must say that the speeches of the critics of the Select Committee have almost driven me to the extreme and opposite point of view. They have left in my mind the impression that the Government must at a, very early date give the House an opportunity of deciding, not on steps towards Indian reform, but on the big principle, because if the claims of the critics of the Government are well founded there is a majority in this House who do not want India to get any measure of increased self-government at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) went further in his concluding remarks. He talked about some strong man who was to walk into India, not thrown up by the Indian people but thrown up by this nation, and to rule India with dictatorial powers. If that be the majority view in this House the sooner we know about it the better.

Sir H. CROFT: I said no such thing. What I did say was that I hoped that in this country we should not take the slogan of defeatism which was uttered in the Debate the other day as representing the views of this country, and that strong leadership was required in this country. I never made any reference to any form of dictatorship in India.

Mr. MAXTON: I apologise to the hon. Baronet and accept his statement of what he said as the accurate one, but certainly that was not the impression that was left
on my mind when I listened to him, nor was it the impression left on my mind generally by that point of view as expressed in this Debate. Right through the critics have said that genuine Conservative opinion, as distinct from the non-genuine variety that is represented on the Treasury Bench, is not adequately represented on the Select Committee, and they are afraid that India, will get some greater measure of self-government than they desire India should have or than they think India, is fit for. That is the view of the critics of the Select Committee. It is unfair for the hon. Member for South Kensington to make a point against the hon. and gallant Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell) by saying that the hon. and gallant Member did not put this matter before his electors. That may be a point against a new Member of this House, but every senior Member, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the hon. Member for South Kensington, and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth knew that unless the word of this nation to India. was to be broken, this House had to take steps; and as I see the whole Debate to-day this is an effort on the part of Conservative sections in this House to contract out of an honourable promise that was given to the Indian people, to withdraw from the decision taken by this nation in 1917, which they regret was ever given.
My criticism of the operation of the Government is from the extreme opposite pole. My criticism of the Select Committee is that it does not contain one representative of the point of view which says that India should be recognised as a free and independent nation, and that the constitution India has to live under in future should be laid down by the Indian people themselves. That point of view is not represented on the Select Committee and therefore the Committee is not a representative one.

6.28 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: So far as the Labour party are concerned, we shall support the Amendment. We do not do so because we agree with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). As everyone knows we are worlds apart in our views on the Indian situation. But with the speeches made by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment we do
agree to this extent—that this Committee is unduly weighted on behalf of the Government. We have throughout protested that the representation of the Opposition should be greater than it is, and one of the means of bringing that about, of course, is to remove the Government Members from the Committee so as to leave a larger percentage of the remaining Committee for the Opposition. I do not agree with what the last speaker has said as regards no representation on the Select Committee of those who believe in. Indian self-determination. We have always taken that view, and since the Select Committee is to consider not only the details of the White Paper but the fundamental principles which lie behind the White Paper, we feel that we are entitled to a larger representation than three out of 16. For those reasons we shall support the Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: This Debate has run exactly the course that I expected it to run, even to the last stage. I felt quite sure that the more anxious some of my hon. Friends were to criticise the Government and our proposals, the more certain it was that they would be supported from the Opposition benches including the official Opposition. We have just seen one of the usual incidents of Parliamentary tactics. The Opposition—and I do not blame them, for we should have done exactly the same thing in their position—wait to see what course a Debate is going to take, and, if there is a cleavage in the Government ranks, then immediately they jump in, and announce that they will support the embarrassing element. None the less I am rather sorry that the Opposition have thrown in their lot in favour of the Amendment. I know that they wanted a larger representation on the Committee, but I thought I had convinced them that we could not do more than we had done in the conditions in which we were working. One of the troubles of this whole business has been this—that as soon as any additional Member is added to the Committee, every other group in the House, to say nothing of other places, immediately says, "Now that somebody else has been added from that side, we want an addition to the representation from our side." That has been one of my main difficulties all the way through these negotiations.
I am inclined to think that, with the best will in the world, a good many of my hon. Friends have got away from the realities of the problem this afternoon. They seemed to think that all that was necessary was to accept the fact that on some of these issues the Conservative party is divided and to think of that and nothing else—in other words to have a Committee composed almost entirely of Members of the Conservative party. There may be a good deal to be said for a proposition of that kind, but I wonder what hon. Members opposite would have said if I had followed some of the advice given to me this afternoon. I was faced with the problem of advising the House, not as to the selection of an ideal committee—we should never get an ideal committee about anything—but the best kind of committee to represent the various bodies of opinion in the House as they are to-day. That meant to say that before I proceeded even to consider the Conservative representation I had to take into account the Opposition parties and give them their due representation. In this particular case, there has been added this great complexity that, perhaps for the first time in the history of these committees, some Members of the Opposition parties may—at any rate from time to time—support the Government proposals. At the same time, if I had accepted Members of any of the Oppositions as representative of the Conservative opinion that is in favour of the White Paper, I wonder what many of my hon. Friends would have said to me to-day. They would have said: "You and the Government are placing yourselves in the position of being dependent on Opposition votes."
I will be frank with the House. As long as I have any influence in any Government, I am not prepared to see that Government abdicating in any respect its duties. I would make no excuse for that at all. I claim that in a case of this kind it would have been a great injury to the body of Conservative opinion which is in favour of the White Paper, and in any case would have been directly contrary to the procedure of this House over many generations, if we had left that body of opinion which is, on the whole, in favour of the White Paper proposals at the mercy of the idiosyncrasies of any of the Oppositions. I can imagine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr.
Churchill) would have said had we been guilty of such a dereliction of duty. He would have said: "Look at these Conservatives in the Government who do not represent Conservative opinion at all." That is part of his case. He would have said "They are depending for very important decisions taken in this Committee, upon Socialist and Liberal votes."

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should never have said anything of the sort.

Sir S. HOARE: Whether the right hon. Gentleman was likely to say anything of the sort or not, I was not going to place myself in that very dangerous position. The House should remember that we have proceeded exactly upon the lines upon which every Select Committee has been formed in the past. The Select Committee set up to deal with the Government of India Act of 1919 was set up by exactly the same method as that which we are proposing to-day. Then as now the main bodies of opinion were represented, and, then as now, the Government bad on the whole a majority. We depart by no jot or tittle on this occasion from the procedure always adopted. I am in some difficulty when I come to answer questions that have been raised by various hon. Members as to whether such and such an individual was invited and whether, if he had accepted, a particular body of opinion would have had a stronger representation in the Committee or not. I am in a difficulty for this reason. In a matter of this kind one must have innumerable conversations, many of them of a confidential character, and the last thing in the world I would wish to do, even though it greatly strengthened my own case, would be to disclose any information that emerged from a confidential conversation. But I think I am justified in saying that throughout all these weeks in which we have been considering the names of the Members of the Committee, we have been in the closest touch with the leading representatives and among the leading representatives I include the leaders of the Conservatives who do not agree with me upon this question of personnel.
Originally we hoped that the Committee would be constituted of 24 members, but we found there were so many claims that could not be resisted, that
we had to increase the number. I was under the impression that, so long as the number remained at 24, there was, I will not say general agreement—perhaps that would be putting it too high—but there was a general acceptance of our proposals as not unreasonable. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping admitted as much in his speech this afternoon. He put the number as being 22 instead of 24, but I think I am not misrepresenting him in taking his statement to be that if the number had remained at 24, our proposals would not have been unfair to the minority. So there is not as much between us as would at first appear. It is merely a question as to how the additional eight members should represent various bodies of opinion in both Houses. I did my best to obtain another representative of the Right in this House. I approached more than one of my hon. Friends—and this I think answers the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). For instance I did my best to persuade the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who made one of the most acute criticisms of the Government proposals that was made in the course of our Debates, to come on to the Committee. If he had come on to the Committee, that would have been in addition to any representation which there is at present of that group or the groups of the Right.
I must not say anything about the other House. I will only, in a word, indicate that I did make an offer of further representation among, the additional eight, of the Right in the other place as well, but for reasons, good or bad, into which I need not go, it was found that that offer could not be accepted. I mention these facts to show that I did my utmost to see that those groups should be properly represented and I still claim that, whatever may be the numbers—and numbers are not all that count in an expert inquiry of this kind—every point of view will have adequate expression. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping is right and the Committee is not an impartial body, the House can judge of that when the Committee makes its report. The report will be a public document. The House will see it and will see the voting, if indeed there is any voting in the Com-
mittee, and they can judge how far each of these various opinions has made itself felt or has failed to get itself felt.
I come to the specific questions asked by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He asked would it be possible for evidence to be given from people who were not necessarily members of the Committee. He also asked if it was possible for any issues to be raised, even issues that ran counter to the White Paper proposals. My answer is perfectly clear. As to the first question, the Committee must settle what evidence it is going to take. As far as I am concerned, I would advise the Committee to give every opportunity for serious and responsible evidence to be taken and the more so when that evidence may conflict with the general proposals of the White Paper. As to the further question, whether points could be debated which run counter to the White Paper, my answer without doubt is "yes" The whole field is open. We have specifically said that the terms of reference to the Committee are the Government of India in general, and the White Paper proposals in particular. The Government and I stand by that statement and, just as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish, I know, to raise issues that go outside the White Paper, so I am confident some of my hon. Friends wish to raise issues from the other angle. As far as I can see and as far as my advice counts both those sections of thought will have their opportunity.
Finally, I ask the House not to vote upon this issue as if it were a theoretical issue in which we could get some ideal arrangement that would please everybody. Let them dismiss any idea of that kind entirely from their minds. Any proposal that is made will be open to every kind of objection. Every proposal will have to take into account the difficulties that face us in making these proposals, and I say to the House to-night that after weeks of constant talks and negotiations, after considering these issues inside and out from every angle, I do not believe that we can make a better recommendation than we are making to-day. I am confident that, whatever views may have been expressed in. the House this afternoon, the great
body of public opinion in the country, particularly the body of public opinion that is not very much interested in party battles, least of all in battles between one section of one party and another, will on the whole say that this is a body composed of weighty and expert opinion, that it gathers around it experience drawn both from India and this country, and, on the whole, is just the kind of body whose opinion it would desire when it comes to make up its mind in due course when the Bill is introduced into this House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: We have been discussing an Amendment for three hours. Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to say a single word about it, or are we to take it that there is no possible reply from the Government?

Sir S. HOARE: I did not wish in any way to be discourteous to my hon. and gallant Friend. I thought I had included an answer to his Amendment in the general answer that I was making on the whole question. Moreover, I did deal with it—perhaps it was wrong—by anticipation in the speech that I made in opening the Debate. My answer to it must be this, that I do not believe that this work, which is essentially work for experts, can be carried out without representation of the Government on the Committee. I set aside entirely any personal criticism as to whether I or anybody else is suitable to be on the Committee, but

I say emphatically that I do not believe that a Committee of this kind can carry on its work without Government representation upon it, and I claim that the members of the Government whom we I propose to-day are in every case qualified, not because they are members of the Government, but because of their special experience in Indian affairs.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government must be represented, will he consent that two of the Government's proposed representatives should be taken off, as suggested by one of the Amendments?

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question, namely, why the Committee of Selection was ignored in nominating the members of this Committee? The Committee of Selection of this House is the appropriate body to nominate members of Select Committees, yet the Government have decided to ignore them altogether.

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member is inaccurate in assuming that this is an unusual procedure. It is not. This procedure was adopted in the case of the Government of India Bill in 1919.

Sir C. OMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I asked him?

Question put, "That the word 'Sixteen' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 118.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[6.49 p.m.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fermoy, Lord


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Atkinson, Cyril
Clarke, Frank
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cooper, A. Duff
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Goff, Sir Park


Bernays, Robert
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goldie, Noel B.


Blrchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cross, R. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Blindell, James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Borodale, Viscount
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).


Boulton, W. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Doran, Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duggan, Hubert John
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Burghley, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Butler, Richard Austen
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hanley, Dennis A.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Harris, Sir Percy


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Horobin, Ian M.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Selley, Harry R,


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Morgan, Robert H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morrison, William Shephard
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L


Ker, J Campbell
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Spens, William Patrick


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Knight, Holford
Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pearson, William G.
Stevenson, James


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Storey, Samuel


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lewis, Oswald
Potter, John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thompson, Luke


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Pybus, Percy John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mabane, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rea, Walter Russell
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir John S.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Womersley, Walter James


Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)



Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris Jones.


Meller, Richard James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dobbie, William
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eastwood, John Francis
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Edwards, Charles
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
North, Captain Edward T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Greene, William P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Purbrick, R.


Bracken, Brendan
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Groves, Thomas E.
Rankin, Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ray, Sir William


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hanbury, Cecil
Remer, John R.


Cape, Thomas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Carver, Major William H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon, Winston Spencer
John, William
Scone, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Slater, John


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kimball, Lawrence
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kirkwood, David
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cove, William G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Craddock, sir Reginald Henry
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Summersby, Charles H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lees-Jones, John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Daggar, George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Levy, Thomas
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Logan, David Gilbert
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lunn, William
Wells, Sydney Richard




Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Captain Crookshank and Sir J. Ganzoni


Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

6.59 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask a question on a point that has never been explained to the House? This paragraph introduces Indian representatives for consultation and so forth, but we have never been told what is to be the position of the Indian representatives who will come over to this country to take part in the proceedings of the Committee. Ordinarily, a Joint Select Committee consists of Members of both Houses, and those who attend to give evidence and for consultation and so forth take no part in the deliberations of the Committee. The point on which I expect information is: What is to be their position? We have been told by the Government that it will be for the Committee to decide. I am afraid that will not do. That is not an answer. These gentlemen from India are to come over for some purpose. They have received invitations. Are they to be present during the proceedings when these are held in camera? Will the Indian gentlemen take part in the final deliberations and assist in drawing up the Report of the Joint Select Committee? We are entering upon new procedure. This point is of great importance, and the House should be informed.

7.2 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I gladly respond to my right hon. and gallant Friend's invitation. He is quite right in saying that this is a novel paragraph. It is novel to this extent that, in previous Resolutions of this kind, no such paragraph has been introduced. It is not novel so far as public considerations are concerned, and by that I mean that for something like 10 years a procedure of this kind has always been contemplated. It was announced in some detail in another place by Lord Birkenhead when he was Secretary of State for India, and successive Governments have always accepted this procedure, or something like it, at this stage. It is difficult for me to be very explicit, because I am not quite sure myself. I am not sure also what will be the wishes of the Committee on the subject. The last thing in the world I should wish to do is to attempt
to dictate to the Committee how it should carry out this proviso, but my view would be something like this: First of all, I should start with the assumption that the Indians are there for the purpose of consultation, and not there as members of the Committee. That means that the Committee must be master of its own procedure, and it also means that the Indians cannot vote. It will probably mean that the Indians do not take part in the actual drawing up of the report. As to when they should be present, and when they should not be present, I believe it is much better to leave that to the Committee itself. The Committee will find it a great advantage, for all purposes of preliminary discussion, to have the Indians present. I hope they will be present. As to what happens at subsequent stages, I think we must leave the Committee to decide.

Miss RATHBONE: Have the co-operating Indians already been selected, and will the selection be made known to this House? Over and above the Indians chosen to co-operate with the Joint Select Committee, will evidence be received from other Indian witnesses, and what notice will be given so that Indians who wish to give evidence may know in reasonable time and make preparations for coming over?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Lady has asked two questions: First, what other invitations have been issued? No invitations of any kind have been issued. That would have been transgressing the prerogative of the Committee. The position is that I have been in close consultation with the Government of India, and Provincial Governments, and I have a list—a very provisional list—of representative Indians whose presence I think would be valuable to the Committee. I will certainly suggest some names to the Committee, but as to whom the Committee selects, and how the invitations will be sent out, I cannot say anything. The hon. Lady then asked me about evidence over and above that of the Indians there for the purposes of consultation. There, again, I can only say what I am going to advise the Committee to do. I am hoping that the Committee, being set up,
will have an early meeting to settle its own procedure. At that meeting I propose to suggest to the Committee that it should make some public announcement inviting evidence, and the hon. Lady may rest assured that although, after all, it is a matter for the Committee a public announcement of that kind will be made, and opportunities will be given to Indian witnesses to come over here in due time.

7.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: There must be some limit to these questions after the right hon. Gentleman sits down.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of 16 members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report on the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268.

Mr. Attlee nominated a member of the Committee.—[Captain Margesson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Butler be another member of the Committee."—[Captain Margesson.]

7.11 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the words "Mr. Butler" and to insert instead thereof the words "Mr. Munro."
I need hardly say that in moving this Amendment I shall endeavour to keep as clear as I can of personalities. I have kept absolutely clear of taking up any position regarding Indian topics. It was only when I saw the formation of this Committee that I was absolutely convinced in my own mind that, if this Committee went on with its present composition, it could not have the confidence of the country in any way whatever. I am, therefore, moving to omit several names from the Committee, and to substitute the names of people who, at any rate, are representative Members of Parliament and have some claim to take part in these discussions. I have naturally, no objection whatever to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India.
He certainly does not qualify for what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) described earlier as the "ancient and venerable" category. He is not in that category, but he is none the worse for that. He represents the official point of view on this matter, and he must, from the very nature of things, represent the view of the Indian Civil Service. That is the finest Civil Service in the world. I will give way to no one in my opinion of that Service.
Frankly, I say that in matters of this kind, when the Government are passing legislation, it is not really necessary for the Government to have four members—a quarter of the members of this committee—taken from official quarters, and in actual Government service. It will not in any way handicap the Government if we take out one or two of the members I am proposing to omit. If I may be permitted to say so, my hon. and gallant Friend, others, and myself, in asking these people if we might put their names forward have endeavoured to get people of considerable experience. At the name of Mr. Munro the Government need not be frightened. He is not a diehard, or anything of that sort. There is nothing for the Secretary of State for India to get timid about in regard to this particular name. He need not fear having the committee overweighted against him. Mr. Munro, I believe, voted for the Government on this matter. He has had very considerable experience of affairs in the East. Is it necessary, when you are appointing people to deal with India, that you should adhere so closely to those who are the perpetual flowers of Indian debate. Might we not occasionally have someone with experience outside. We know that the circle of the Indian Debate is very narrow. Here you have an hon. Gentleman with great experience of service in the Sudan, which gives him qualifications for dealing with Eastern counties. I notice the Under-Secretary smiling at the idea of the Sudan.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler) indicated dissent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I made a slip and said "Eastern counties" instead of Eastern countries. I would like to see Members who have considerable connection with other parts of the East, as well
as India, placed on these committees, because you will get a very much wider source of inspiration for drawing up whatever recommendations are contemplated. By placing executive members on this committee you are taking away from the committee as a whole the position which it really should have—the position of judging on these matters—and you are appointing as judges the people who really ought to be advising the committee. For that reason, I ask the House to support the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must, before putting the Question, ask the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) if he has received the consent of the hon. Member whom he has nominated?

Mr. WILLIAMS indicated assent.

7.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), that we are not actuated by any hostility to the Under-Secretary of State for India, or any of the other hon. or right hon. Members whose names we are moving to leave out. We think, in view of all the circumstances of this case, that it would be better if they were not members of this Committee. The object of this Committee is to examine the proposals of the Government and to report on them to the House, and it seems to us if the Under-Secretary and the other Members of the Government are on the Committee it will be far too much overweighted with the official point of view. It is not a good thing that so many people who have been largely responsible for the preparation of these proposals should sit on a committee which has to pass judgment on them. I do not want to have the Committee over-weighted in either direction, but we must remember that those who are known as out and out opponents of the Government's proposals have a very small numerical representation.
I belong to the third category that was mentioned by the Secretary of State; I am not an out and out supporter or an out and out opponent of the Government's proposals. I am looking for guidance to the report of the Committee, and I do
not think that the Committee as it is proposed is such as to command the confidence of the country in general. There is a great deal of disquiet all over the country about this question, and it is particularly important that the Committee shall be one that will carry confidence throughout the country. For that reason we are suggesting that the name of the Under-Secretary be omitted and that the name of the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) be substituted. In his case, and in the case of the other hon. Members whom we are moving to substitute, they are in no way responsible for their names being put forward, but each of them has consented to it. I think that the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry is the right type of member for the Committee, for he has had long experience in the Orient and can be trusted to bring a well-balanced judgment on these proposals.

7.17 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Opposition are not concerned to support this Amendment. They believe that the Government had better select their own representatives, and as long as we are satisfied with ours, we do not propose to support any Amendment altering the names put down by the Government.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: This Amendment raises a question of principle which ought to be examined by the House with a view perhaps to future occasions when a committee of this character is set up. I am also among those Members who have never expressed any view on the subject of India at any time, and I do not know what my final view will be. I think that the same can be said for a large number of Members, who perhaps are in a majority. I have never associated myself with my hon. Friends the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I find myself, not for the first time, in complete agreement with what the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said in the Debate at an earlier stage. Looking at it from an impartial point of view, nobody could say that this Committee was a completely impartial body. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would really claim that he has set
up an impartial Committee. It is not even a partial committee; it is a packed committee and it is overwhelmingly in favour of the principles underlying the White Paper. We cannot get away from that. Therefore, from the point of view of altering the principles of the policy which has been put forward by the Government, the Committee is absolutely valueless for no alterations will be accepted. Therefore, I fully sympathise with the attitude taken up by the right hon. Member for Epping in not joining the Committee, holding the views that he does, as I do not think that he could possibly persuade this sort of Committee under any circumstances to change the principles which underlie the White Paper.
The point I want to raise with regard to this question is this, and I think that it is a very serious one. Either the Secretary of State and the Government accept full responsibility for the proposals or they do not. In the former case I am not sure that it would not have been better for the Government to consult all those eminent persons, governors and ex-viceroys, and all the people whom the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) mentioned in the India Office. Let the Government consult anybody with any experience they like in the India Office, and then produce their own Bill. There seems to me. something hypocritical in setting up this so-called impartial Committee of both Houses of Parliament with no fewer than four Members of the Government on it who are pledged completely to the policy of the White Paper, and have been pledged to it for two years past.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: The whole thing is a farce!

Mr. BOOTHBY: There is some ground for the assumption that this Committee, as an impartial committee of both Houses to examine impartially the Indian question, is a farce. As an advisory body to the Secretary of State, it might prove invaluable, but as an impartial committee it is something of a farce. If an impartial committee is desired—and I think that there are grounds for supposing that it is desired—then I do not think that it can possibly, in the nature of things, be appointed by the Secretary of State for India, nor do I think that it ought to
contain no fewer than four Members of the -Administration in a comparatively small personnel.
If it had been desired to set up an impartial committee to consider this question upon its merits, that committee, whatever the precedent of 1919 may have been, should really have been chosen not by the Secretary of State, but by the House in any manner that the Government might suggest. That, is the point I want to make, and it is a point on which I should be grateful for the considered opinion of the Secretary of State because it is a question of precedent and principle. If we are to have an impartial committee, the Government ought to take the Whips off and let the House select the members. That committee should have power to send for members of the Government, who could give the Committee the benefit of their advice and explain their proposals. If that is not considered desirable, I am still not convinced that it would not have been really a better procedure on the part of the Government to sweep away all this facade and take full responsibility for their proposals, taking every opportunity of consulting the best and most experienced opinion in the India Office in this country and in India.

7.23 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I hope that the Under-Secretary will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that I support the appointment of another Member. I have a happy recollection of the work I did with him in the last Parliament and I hope that he will not take my action as discourteous. I feel, however, that the representation of the critics of the Government's policy on the Joint Select Committee is very inadequate, and the only way it can be made more adequate is by removing the two Junior Ministers and by putting on two more critics. Personally I would have preferred to see the Under-Secretary's name replaced by that of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald). Although the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) has had great experience in the East, he made a speech the other day on the White Paper in which he supported its proposals. My only reason for asking for the change in the personnel is in order to increase the repre-
sentation of the critics, and I do not think it carries us very much further to make the change proposed in the Amendment. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness fully shares the anxiety that so many of us on these Benches feel. He has the additional claim that he is a representative of a Scottish constituency. It is rather a curious feature of the personnel of this Committee that there is not a Scottish Member among them, and not a large representation of the Liberal party.

7.25 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I find myself neither in full agreement nor in full disagreement with the previous speakers on this Amendment. It seems to me to be perfectly true that this Committee is a packed Committee. I do not see how anyone can consider it otherwise in the sense that it is a Committee the opinion of nearly every one of whose members is known beforehand, not only on the main issue, but on nearly all the more important points. I feel also that it is inevitable that it should be a packed Committee, and I cannot understand why the Government could not have grasped the nettle a little more firmly, and why they are afraid of being accused of packing their Committee. We had an instance of much the same attitude on the part of the Government a week ago when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was speaking. He made the point that the members of the high personnel in the Government of India of recent years had been chosen because of their general sympathy with the policy of the Government. That caused a pause of shocked surprise throughout the House, and then bursts of indignation both in the House and subsequently in the Press. It was treated as though that statement had been a slander on the Indian Civil Service. If it were a slander on anyone, it was a slander on the Secretary of State and on the Government of India, but as a mere outsider in these matters, for the life of me I cannot understand why it was regarded as a slander at all.
Is it not mere common sense, if it be true, that the Government, being committed to a particular policy for India, not of itself only but through its two
predecessors having been committed to it, and all three parties in the House committed by a large majority to it, should want to have an administration in India that would be in general sympathy with that policy? The India of to-day must prepare for the India of to-morrow, and would the India of to-day prepare more effectively for the future if its high personnel were composed of people who were sharply in opposition to the changes that are to come?

Mr. SPEAKER: The only issue before the House is the appointment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler).

Miss RATHBONE: I only wanted to make this point because of its analogy to the case of the present committee. It is inevitable that a committee formed to carry out the policy to which the Government have been committed for such a long period should in a sense be a packed committee. We have heard much of what the Conservative party will think, but what would India think if the Government put the reins on the back of the horse and appoint a committee from which the Ministers who have been working in the past at this particular policy were absent? I think that that would have been politically impossible. It would also have been scientifically impossible. It would have produced an extraordinarily inefficient committee because the subject is so difficult and the issues are so immensely complicated and detailed, that a committee of which the majority of Members were new to the subject and had impartial minds could not really be in a position to take a sufficient grasp of the subject and produce a finally satisfactory set of proposals. It had to be a packed committee. But I want to point out that there are disadvantages about the plan as well as inevitabilities. The Government have chosen a majority of Members who have worked together on one or other of the conferences, commissions and committees which have been sitting during the last four or five years, and whose opinions must be completely known to each other. Scarcely a single question can arise which has not been discussed over and over again, and I can imagine that the clever young men at the India Office might almost be able to write down, here and now, the arguments which will be used and the very words which will be employed by most of the members of the
committee on most of the points which will come up for discussion.
I think it is regrettable that more new blood could not have been found for the committee, and I regret particularly that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is not a member of it. I do not by any means agree with all that he said in that speech which held the House breathless a week ago, but who can deny that it brought something of a fresh breath of ozone into the exhausted atmosphere of an India Debate in which nearly every other argument we heard had been used over and over again? Since that is not to be, and since the committee is composed of those who have made up their minds on nearly every point, I suggest that the only hope for a freshening of the atmosphere is to be found in the very free use of the method which I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say he hoped to induce the committee to use, and that is the plan of hearing evidence from outside, both from those in this country and from those in India, who have special experience or have made a special study of particular aspects of the question. I would remind the House that although evidence has been heard before the various travelling committees in India, there has been no opportunity given to those in this country who do not belong to that select and privileged panel from which is drawn the membership of the Government's various India committees to express their opinion, and I feel that some of the disadvantages of the method pursued will be offset if evidence can be taken from such persons both in this country and in India; but so far as the witnesses from India are concerned I feel there will be a very great difficulty.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of witnesses from India surely does not arise on this Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE: I will not pursue that point any further, but the Secretary of State did say in his speech that he intended to recommend to the Committee that they should hear evidence, and I merely wanted to put forward a plea that the great difficulties of time and space in bringing witnesses from India unless adequate notice is given them should be taken into consideration.

Mr. SPEAKER: That point cannot be raised on this Amendment.

7.34 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Lady, true to the traditions of the independent Member, has been impartial in the blame she has showered on the heads of almost all of us.

Miss RATHBONE: And the praise.

Sir S. HOARE: I noted the blame rather than the praise, but I am delighted that she intended it should be fifty-fifty. I do not think I need detain the House at any length with my reply to this Amendment. I did attempt to deal with the general proposition underlying it both in my opening speech and in the speech with which I ended the principal discussion. I do not admit that this is a packed Committee. All my arguments show that it was not. Nor do I admit that any Committee of this kind can work without Government representatives as Members of it. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments I have already made on the subject, but I do not admit the justice of the contention on the other side at all. I believe that if no Members of the Government were on this Committee the first thing the Committee would demand would be that Members of the Government should be added to them. When it comes to this specific proposal to exclude my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, I say that it is my own convinced opinion that it is essential that anyone in the position I hold should have an assistant there to help him to explain the tremendous complexities of these constitutional proposals or any constitutional proposals to the Joint Select Committee. In view of these opinions I cannot accept the Amendment.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, in the case of the last, Joint Select Committee, Mr. Secretary Montagu was there alone without any other Member of the Government?

Sir S. HOARE: We were then in the happy days when not many people were showing an interest in Indian questions, and the Committee was a much smaller Committee than we are now proposing.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does not the Minister regard the presence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as adequate?

Question put, "That the words' Mr. Butler,' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 49.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[7.37 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hales, Harold K.
Parkinson, John Allen


Atkinson, Cyril
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Patrick, Colin M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pearson, William G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Penny, Sir George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hanbury, Cecil
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Bernays, Robert
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Potter, John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Blindell, James
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pybus, Percy John


Boulton, W. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hirst, George Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horobin, Ian M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Burghley, Lord
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cape, Thomas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Carver, Major William H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Castlereagh, Viscount
John, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Castle Stewart. Earl
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Clayton, Dr-George C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ker, J. Campbell
Savery, Samuel Servington


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kirkwood, David
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smithers, Waldron


Cross, R. H.
Leonard, William
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lewis, Oswald
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Spend, William Patrick


Dagger, George
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Stevenson, James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Storey, Samuel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Dobbie, William
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Doran, Edward
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Summersby, Charles H.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lunn, William
Sutcliffe, Harold


Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Edwards, Charles
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McEntee, Valentine L.
Thompson, Luke


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Thorne, William James


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Tinker, John Joseph


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Magnay, Thomas
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Glossop, C. W. H.
Milner, Major James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Gower, Sir Robert
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morgan, Robert H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Morrison, William Shepherd
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.



Groves, Thomas E.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rankin, Robert


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, John R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Kimball, Lawrence
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Beaumont, M. vv. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Bracken, Brendan
Levy, Thomas
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Broadbent, Colonel John
McGovern, John
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Wells, Sydney Richard


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Maxton, James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Clarke, Frank
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Conant, R. J. E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Mr. Charles Williams and Lieut.-


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Colonel Windsor-Clive.


Greene, William P. C.
Purbrick, R.



Main Question but, and agreed to.

Mr. Butler accordingly nominated another Member of the Committee.

Mr. Cadogan, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Cocks, and Sir Reginald Craddock nominated other Members of the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Davidson be another Member of the Committee.—[Captain Margesson.]

7.45 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Mr. Davidson," and to insert instead thereof the words "Mr. Nunn."
I will not occupy the time of the House very long on this matter. I can assure hon. Members that I have nothing but friendship for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have always supported him, right through a very long political existence, and I very much regret that I should be asking the House to remove his name on this occasion. His connection with India is that he took part in a very able reform His ability on all these matters is marked, as is well-known to hon. Members, but it would be better not to have upon the Committee one who has necessarily been closely associated with party politics. I would rather have someone from outside, and I have chosen in this case one who has made his impression upon the House for his political ability. He has a very great knowledge of such matters as customs and excise. I would ask whether it would not be better, on the whole, if the Secretary of State for India would meet the point which we are raising. Just now, the Secretary of State for India said that he could not meet us on any of these matters. He has laid it down quite clearly and definitely that he
is not going to meet the feeling of the House of Commons which this afternoon has been expressed more strongly against the Government than during the lifetime of this Parliament. Nothing has been done by the Secretary of State, and in the speech which I suppose we shall hear again, nothing will in any way meet the views of those of us who have done our best to stand by the Government on this difficult question. Many of us have been obliged to go and see people in difficult circumstances and to ask them to support the Government. Why in the world cannot we be met on one or two of the cases which we have put up this evening? Why cannot the Government give us one or two representative Members of the ordinary back benchers, men who have knowledge of the world and who have just as much the respect of the House of Commons as some Members of the Government. I simply ask the Government whether they cannot meet us on this occasion, or on one of the other Amendments that I have put down.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: The arguments in favour of this Amendment are the same as those in favour of the last Amendment. I do not wish to repeat what I then said, so I shall formally second the Amendment.

7.50 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I was not in favour of the last Amendment as I thought that the Secretary of State made a good case that it was desirable that he and his assistant should go to the Joint Select Committee. While I have every respect for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his proper place, I do not see why this Committee should be overloaded by another Member of the Cabinet when, apart from his special
inquiry in India, there is no reason to appoint him to this Committee. His is a very different position from that of the Secretary of State or of the Under-Secretary of State for India. Having regard to the fact that this Committee is grossly overloaded on the side of the Government, I support the Amendment.

7.51 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I support this Amendment. Again, I must ask hon. Members to acquit me of any desire to depreciate the value of the presence upon the Committee of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but, for reasons which I have already explained to the House, in this case it is proposed to substitute for his name the name of an hon. Member who has had long experience in the East and who can adequately represent the views of back benchers of whom too little has been heard.

7.52 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) I must make the same speech again. I have nothing to add to my

answer to the last Amendment. It is of importance to have as a member of the Committee the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not because he is a Member of the Government, but because he was Chairman of the very important inquiry that was made last year. It is particularly necessary in India to have him, for the reason that the basic question to be considered by the Joint Committee is that of Federation and the accession of the States. That is the fundamental basis of the proposals that we are making. I would certainly have said that the Committee will find it indispensable to have the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster there to answer questions about the position of the States, and particularly about the financial relations between the States who are coming into the Federation and British India. With great reluctance therefore, because I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friends, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words Mr. Davidson' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 217: Noes, 49.

Mr. Davidson accordingly nominated another member of the Committee.

Mr. Isaac Foot nominated a member of the committee,

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare be another member of the Committee."—[Captain Margesson.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the words "Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare," and to insert instead thereof the words "Mr. Annesley Somerville."
It is a little difficult to find any flaw in the right hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tary of State for India, and I can understand a certain amount a astonishment at an ordinary back-bench Member suggesting that anyone who is so very perfect should be taken off the Committee. I would like, however, to remind the right hon. Gentleman of some of his speeches. I have' a speech here in which somebody not long ago said some very unkind things about his speeches, and, in these circumstances, I am not sure that we ought to have the right hon. Gentleman on this particular Committee. This is what was said about one of his speeches:
They go on during this Parliament making the same speech and maintaining the same course of policy.
That, indeed, is what he said about his own speeches not very long ago in the
House of Commons, and he said it again, I believe, a few minutes ago. The real reason, however, why some of us wish for this Amendment is that the right hon. Gentleman, after all, is, or should be, the person who is laying down and making this policy, and he should come before the Committee as the person who submits the policy which the Government desire carried out. It is putting the Committee in an utterly impossible position before the eyes of practically the whole country to assume that one right hon. Gentleman, however perfect he may be in this world, can vote, act as judge, and also be a, witness in a case of this kind.
I would like to see the Committee absolutely cleared of all these Ministers, so that its members should have a real chance of giving judgment, and I hope that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's modesty may allow him, to withdraw on this particular occasion in favour of an hon. Member who does not suffer from some of his disabilities. After all, my hon. Friend whom I would rather see on this Committee has had a very distinguished career, and has not, I believe, had the misfortune to get connected with Harrow. Such disabilities are never got over unless it be by following the course which has been followed by some other people. I would venture to express the hope that the House will accept the name of my hon. Friend rather than that of one of the Government nominee, however able he may be and undoubtedly is. I give the right hon. Gentleman every credit for the fact that he has restored order in India. That is one of the finest things that has ever been done, when you consider the absolutely half-witted nature of the policy of his predecessor. On the other hand, however, that is no reason why we should overburden him in this matter; me must be careful of these extraordinary finds when we get them. I wish to relieve him of all unnecessary work in this matter; I do not wish to put too many burdens on his shoulders, when I know that there is someone who is perfectly capable of taking on the work. Therefore, I would ask the House to spare the right hon. Gentleman the work which he has told us is so very hard, and let him, go on keeping order in, India, which he is doing so successfully.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I rise for the purpose of asking my hon. Friends not to press this matter to a Division. May I say, in the first place, that, when I consented to allow my name to be put forward, I did so as a protest, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of my constituency, which is opposed to the scheme of the Government. At a meeting in the constituency at the beginning of last week a unanimous resolution was passed. We are afraid that the Government are going too fast and too far. I had not the least desire to serve on the Committee, but I felt on Friday, when some of my hon. Friends were discussing the question of its appointment, and when no other name was available, that I could not resist putting mine forward. At the meeting to which I have referred, a constituent asked me: "Are the Government going to pack the Committee?" My answer was that the issues were too large and the Secretary of State too fair-minded to pack the Committee. Now I shall have some difficulty in replying when next I meet my constituents. I wish that the Secretary of State were not on the Committee. I only hope that he will not be remembered as the successor of the Morleys and the Montagus who went to India, took a bird's-eye view of that sub-continent, and came back and presented a scheme to this House involving the good government of 350,000,000 fellow-subjects of our King-Emperor, a scheme which, I devoutly hope, may not be a long step in the severance of India from the Empire.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division. I think it would be rather peculiar if the Secretary of State were not a member of the Committee. His predecessor was a member of the Joint Committee of a similar character which considered the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, and I think that the presence of the Secretary of State on the Committee is necessary. I do not think that anyone else can understand the complexities of the question better than he does, and, although we are very much opposed to the scheme politically, I think he will at any rate have this advantage on the
Committee that he has more or less handpicked it. He has made some very bad choices, and I feel that the presence of the Secretary of State may give some form to their deliberations. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

8.10 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps I ought to make observation, and that is that I have very great sympathy with this Amendment, because, in the first place, it would dispense me from a heavy task, and, secondly, because I have very great sympathy with those hon. Members who, although they have been polite enough not to say so, think that the Committee would be much better without me. My only hesitation in expressing agreement with the observations of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is that it might suggest a surrender on the part of the distinguished school from which I came to a much less distinguished place of education. I am grateful in any case to those hon. Members who, having made their views clear, have said that, out of deference to the position that I hold—not to myself—they are prepared not to press the issue to a Division.

Mr. WILLIAMS: With the permission of the House, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) I would like to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare accordingly nominated another member of the Committee.

Mr. Morgan Jones, Sir Joseph Nall, Lord Eustace Percy, Miss Pickford, Secretary Sir John Simon, Sir John Wardlaw-Milne, and Earl Winterton, nominated other members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House."—[Captain Margesson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Five be the Quorum."—[Captain Margesson.]

8.13 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "Five," and to insert instead thereof the word "Eight."
I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment. According to the precedent of the first Joint Committee, out of seven Members of the House of Commons, the quorum was four, or rather more than half—that is to say, eight out of 14 in the Joint Committee. Now the Government propose that the quorum should be five out of 16 Members of the House of Commons, or less than one-third, and a similar proportion in the case of the whole Committee; that is to say, 22 Members could be absent from the Committee at one time, and the work could be carried on by only 10. This question has to be considered in relation to the undoubted packing of the Committee, to which the House has testified so powerfully to-day. This is one of those cases in which the Government have so large a majority that they can afford to contend with the Opposition in relays. Something of this kind was done, I think, by the recent Conservative Government, which had so large a majority that only one-third of their Members need be on duty at the same time. This matter, however, is one of very great importance. We have been told that these gentlemen who have been selected have special knowledge, and are capable of giving expert attention to the subject. If only 10 out of 32 need be there at a time listening to the evidence and attending to the discussions, undoubtedly what would happen would be that, when a clash arose, the Government would send out their signals, down would march their troop of Ministers and immediate personal retainers, and the position would be reestablished. Meanwhile the Committee is to be left to chatter as long as it likes so long as no menace to the policy that the Government have in view is to be envisaged. My right hon. Friend has a chance to rid himself of such an imputation by accepting my Amendment. I am certain it is a perfectly reasonable principle to say that at least half the Members have to be there if the Committee is to do business. That is all that I am asking for this House, and the other House will probably imitate our procedure in the matter.

8.15 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I hope the Government will accept a matter of this vital importance. Considering, putting it at the lowest, that in the opinion of a very
large number of their supporters this is a packed committee, the least we can expect is that there shall be half the members who have been appointed present.

8.16 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am greatly impressed by the appeals that have been made to me by some of my hon. Friends at any rate to give way somewhere. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) made a very eloquent appeal just now. I am glad to be able to inform him that, being a very reasonable person anxious to meet in every possible way my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am quite ready to accept the Amendment. The Government put down the number five, not because they contemplated the military and melodramatic incidents that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had in his mind, but simply because it is the invariable procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered,
That Eight be the Quorum.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Reduction of subsidies under 14 and 15 Geo. V. c. 35 in respect of houses.)

8.20 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after the word "houses," to insert the words "not in a rural area."
I hope I shall not be out of order if I express my very great regret at being called upon to discuss a Bill of this importance, raising issues of such serious controversy, at this hour of the night. The Bill is as important to Scotland as the English Housing Bill was to England and Wales. I wonder if even now the Government could not make some
arrangement of their business so that we might have an adequate discussion of what for Scotland is a very important matter. I know that a number of friends of mine who were very anxious to be here on Wednesday and made their plans to be here could not alter them so as to be here to-day. It was certainly understood that we should have only an hour or two taken off our time by the Indian Debate and that we should have a full opportunity for a thorough discussion of the proposals of the Bill. I very much regret that that has not turned out to be the case.
The effect of my Amendment would be this. Under the provisions of the Bill the subsidy that was given to housing under the 1924 Act is to be reduced from £9 in the case of houses built in other than rural areas to £3, and the subsidy of £12 10s. for houses in rural areas is also to be reduced to £3. If my Amendment was carried, it would not affect the provisions of the Bill in respect to the £9 subsidy—that is dealt with in a later Amendment—but it would leave the £12 10s. subsidy in operation in the rural areas. There is a real need of houses in rural Scotland at present. The Scottish Housing Commission reported in 1917 that there was a dearth of houses in rural areas and it was of the utmost importance as a matter of public policy to build houses. They declared that the absence of houses was not one of the results but one of the causes of rural depopulation, and the situation since then has not very greatly improved.
I was informed by the Secretary of State, in answer to a question a week or two ago, that the number of houses required in county areas to replace uninhabitable houses was no less than 8,690. That is according to returns which local authorities have made to the Department of Health under the provisions of the 1930 Act. When the National Government was formed, the seriousness of this situation occupied my attention as Secretary of State. At that time we were economising in every direction and were cutting expenditure ruthlessly, and necessarily. In spite of that fact, so serious was the position that we decided to put into partial operation the Housing Rural Workers Act, 1931, which at that time was not in operation at all, and to build 500 houses in rural areas. There were applications actually for 1,700 but,
in view of the serious position of the national finances at the time, it was remarkable that we managed to find the money for these 500, and it would not have been done if the need had not been clearly urgent.
In order to get these houses built, the Committee which was set up under the provisions of the Act to advise the Department of Health as to the amount of the subsidy necessary to induce local authorities in poor rural areas to build houses found itself bound to advise a very large subsidy indeed. In reply to a question two or three weeks ago, I was informed that, including the Wheatley subsidy of £12 10s., the highest subsidy given was no less than £24 10s. and the lowest in the rural areas was £14 15s. That will show clearly that the idea of being able to build houses with a subsidy of £3, or the idea that building societies merely with the Government guarantee will be able to build houses in the rural areas, is the merest moonshine. We shall be deluding ourselves if we think that any housing- will be done in the rural areas of Scotland under the provisions of this Bill. It is just possible that a little housing may be done, even in rural areas, under the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act, 1930, but its provisions have not yet been found easy to work, and I doubt very much if it will be found to apply on any large scale in the rural areas. It certainly has not been so applied yet. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he comes to reply will say that he is not only relying upon that but upon the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. I have asked the Secretary of State some questions about the operation of that Act in the rural areas of Scotland, and I find that out of 33 counties in Scotland, no fewer than 11, one-third of the whole, have only modified schemes under that Act in operation. Four counties in -Scotland have suspended their schemes altogether under the Act, and a fifth county has suspended except for urgent cases.
If hon. Members will look at the answer which I received to two questions which I asked on the subject on 13th March, they will see that the tendency is for counties to do less; that in every case the tendency is gradually to contract their schemes and to modify them in a backward direction and to do less and less as time passes. Obviously the reason
why they are doing less is that they cannot afford to do more. Consequently, it is not surprising to find that it is exactly in the poorest counties, where the need for housing in the rural areas is greatest, that the tendency to do less and less is most marked. Where the need is greatest the least work is being done. The number of houses built under this Act during each of the last three quarters for which information is available, that is, up to the end of December, 1932, shows a gradual decline—771 houses, 735, and, in the last quarter, only 667. Therefore, the House will see that less and less is being done, and that least is being done where the need is greatest.
I submit that this is no time to take away any advantage which has always been given, and, by general agreement, rightly given, to housing authorities in rural areas as compared with burghal areas. Hon. Members representing burghal constituencies always agree that the relatively small advantage of £12 10s., as compared with £9 given under the Wheatley Act, does not, in fact, fully equalise the difference in conditions between the burghal and the country areas. The advantage, far from being too great, is really inadequate. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to agree that, at any rate, some substantial advantage should be retained for the county areas. The figures which I have quoted of the subsidies paid under the 1931 Act show so clearly how difficult it is to get houses built in the rural areas in Scotland that they would very nearly destroy my case because they are almost too strong for my case.
It may be said that if you could only build houses with a £14 10s. subsidy, if that were the smallest subsidy with which you could get houses built in the rural areas last year, what is the use of asking even for a £12 10s. subsidy? My answer to that is that it is, in fact, true, as Government spokesmen have emphasised repeatedly in the Debates which we have had upon this Measure, that there has been a fall in building costs. I think that it is true to say that this fall in building costs probably has made it possible for houses to be built in the rural areas in Scotland at the present time, providing a really substantial subsidy is given. But if, indeed, rural authorities are driven back upon the
Housing (Rural Workers) Act, or upon a £3 subsidy under the present Bill, then, indeed, the outlook for housing in rural areas in Scotland will be black. I, therefore, beg of the House and of the Government to accept the Amendment which I have moved.

8.32 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The first observation I would make about the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend is a technical one, that it would have exactly the opposite effect to what he hoped to achieve. If you exclude, as he excludes, rural houses from Subsection (1) of Clause 1, the effect of Clause 2 would be to deprive them of any subsidy at all, whereas the House well knows that we propose that urban and rural areas shall, where houses are uninhabitable and overcrowded, even have the £3 subsidy.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I did not suppose that the Government would accept the Amendment exactly in the form in which it was moved, but if my hon. Friend will indicate that the Government are prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, I will very gladly accept any consequential Amendments which may be necessary.

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I am not prepared to accept the Amendment in any form. In any case, it would need most elaborate drafting arrangements which could not possibly be carried at the moment. On the merits of the Amendment, my right hon. Friend laid great emphasis upon the fact that the rural areas in their return far 1930 showed that there was a need of 8,000 houses, and he said that those 8,000 houses were required to replace houses which were uninhabitable. Very well, in that case those houses will get the slum clearance grant—the 1930 Act grant—which remains intact. All Scottish Members of the House very well know that the 1930 Act has been largely made use of in Scotland for replacing individual uninhabitable houses as well as for going in for the major provision of the Apt, namely, either clearance or improvement schemes. The replacement of the 8,000 houses required will not in the least be affected by the provisions of the
present Bill. It is not mere chance which makes rural authorities concentrate upon uninhabitable houses. It is one of the features of the rural districts in England and Scotland that the rural population is not increasing but declining. Therefore, the major problem in Scotland, particularly in the rural districts is the replacement of uninhabitable houses. The solution of that problem remains quite unaffected by the provisions of this Bill.
Let me complete the picture so far as the provision of new houses is concerned by saying that the £3 subsidy of the 1933 Bill which will be available to rural authorities in cases where low-wage earners in over-crowded conditions desire better accommodation, will be at least the equivalent of the £12 10s. subsidy, that is to say, the rural subsidy, when it was granted in 1924. Therefore, I do not think that it is open to my right hon. Friend to say that the subsidy will not carry out its functions. The main problem with which rural authorities and the authorities of small towns in the centre of rural districts are faced is the problem of the uninhabitable houses. Let me take, for instance, two small burghs which my right hon. Friend knows very well, the Burghs of Thurso and Wick.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: They would not be affected by the Amendment.

Mr. SKELTON: I think that is true, but it is none the less relevant to show that what is true of the actual rural areas is equally true of the small burghs in their midst. Even there in those small burghs their 1930 estimate was only based upon uninhabitable houses and not at all on an increase of population. It is in these circumstances that I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment, because if there is one department of which we can say in particular that the new situation which will follow will absolutely meet the problems with which we are faced, it is in the rural areas, because there the question is the uninhabitable house, and that is dealt with by the Act of 1930. If the houses and the cottages are not uninhabitable, if they are still in a habitable state but need repair, then there comes into the play the Rural Workers Act, which was passed originally by the Conservative Government and prolonged by the Labour Government. Its function, speaking broadly, is to bring up to modern
requirements rural cottages, the general structure of which is perfectly sound but which may be defective either in water supply, drainage, or very often in regard to the number of rooms, according to modern standards. If we look at the rural problem as a whole it is clear that it is largely covered by the combination of the slum clearance subsidy of £2 10s. per unit displaced, the rural workers' housing operations, with the valuable work which has been done for country cottages, and then the £3, subsidy.
One word about the functioning of the 1926 and 1931 Acts. My right hon. Friend said the trouble was that certain counties have for the moment suspended the operation of the 1926 Act, but he ought also to have stated that the work done under that Act in Scotland has been of the very largest size. Actually more houses, more cottages, have been reconditioned in the country parts of Scotland under that Act than in England, not in proportion but actually more. I have not with me at the moment the number of cottages where operations are going on just now, but at the end of last year the number completed was very nearly 12,000, and I know that a very substantial number are at present being reconstructed. Therefore, although it is true that certain counties, after the great amount of work that they have done in the past—Berwickshire was one; it was pre-eminent in its activities under the 1926 Act—have suspended the Act for the moment, it by no means follows that they will not renew the operations under this Act as need requires. I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if he cannot see his way to withdraw the Amendment, because it is no improvement of the situation, and in its present form it would have exactly the opposite effect from that which he desires.

8.41 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not with to say anything about the drafting of the Amendment, but I should like to say a few words about the merits of the question, and particularly in regard to the 8,000 houses which the Under-Secretary said could be dealt with under the Slum Clearance Act. The amount of money available under that Act depends upon the numbers in any family that have to be moved. In that case if it was a small family the amount available for
dealing with any house would be very small. The amount of subsidy would be so small that I am afraid it would not be sufficient to enable the Under-Secretary to give a definite guarantee that that work could be carried out under the Act. I should like an assurance that he is definitely satisfied that the 8,000 houses can be dealt with under the existing Slum Clearance Act.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The Under-Secretary would seem to suggest that the housing problem only affects the agricultural counties, but I would point out that a very large proportion of the Scottish population lives in industrial areas, where the housing conditions are exceptionally bad. The acceptance of the Amendment, or some understanding in regard to the point raised, would go a long way towards removing one of the biggest blots on Scottish housing. The houses in rural areas are in many ways unspeakable, not only in counties in the north and the south of Scotland but also in what are regarded as industrial areas, mostly in the county of Lanark. You will see there some horrible spectacles of houses in which people are living and nothing can be done to recondition them. They are diseased houses, and it is absolutely impossible to preserve anything like health in them. New houses are required, but the local authorities, particularly in the south-west of Scotland, cannot find the money from their rates to enable them to provide the necessary accommodation, to enable houses to be built which provide for the separation of the sexes and for the other amenities required in any house to give modern sanitary conditions. I should like the Under-Secretary to endeavour to meet the point raised by my right hon. Friend opposite, and to make the subsidy cover a bigger area. I hope it will be possible for the Government to meet the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Member.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: With the permission of the House I will answer the direct question put to me. We are all aware of the large number of houses in industrial districts which are uninhabitable, and also the large number which are rapidly becoming uninhabitable, but I think the provisions of the 1930 Act
adequately meet that situation. And for this reason. That Act provides a subsidy of £2 10s. per person displaced; and that means that where you have a family of five persons you get a subsidy of £12 10s. The average subsidy has worked out at about, £12 10s. In the class of house and district which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has in mind the families tend to be large and very often the subsidy is more than £12 10s. The satisfactory nature of the subsidy is further made manifest by the number of cases in which it has been possible to allow the rate contribution to be definitely less than the £4 10s. allowed for in the 1930 Act. The fact is that there is a large and growing list of burghs and other local authorities in Scotland where the rate contribution is far below the £4 10s. sanctioned. If you take into account the progressive decline in the cost of houses, which is so marked that since the beginning of this year the average decline is about £7 per house, and even more in individual cases, and also the fact that in the truly rural, areas families tend to be large, you will find that in practice the subsidy of £2 10s. per person displaced will be adequate for the work of replacing uninhabitable houses, and that no local authority is likely to be overburdened with expenditure in this matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the Under-Secretary do anything to urge local authorities and county authorities in Scotland to make more decisive attempts at overcoming the overcrowding and to overtake the large number of houses, the 8,000, which are required to be replaced in county areas?

Mr. SKELTON: The House will forgive me for rising the third time, and perhaps it would be more convenient if hon. Members put their points before I replied. Without forestalling observations which really are not relevant to this Amendment may I say that the work under slum clearance is constantly increasing. The activity of Scottish local authorities in slum clearance in the use of the 1930 Act shows a most rapid and satisfactory increase which is by no means confined to urban districts. Let me give the House three figures of houses completed under the 1930 Act at
the end of 1930, 1931 and 1932. In 1930 there were only 518, at the end of 1932 1,170, and in 1933 2,150. That is to say, in two years there has been an increase from 500 to 2,000; and in order to complete the picture may I add that in the first three months of this year the number of new applications approved under the 1930 Act has amounted to a total of 1,418. I beg hon. Members' pardon. The figures for the first three months of the last three years are, in 1931 518, in 1932 1,170, and for the first three months of 1933 1,400.
Every indication shows that local authorities are more and more concentrating upon the use of the 1930 Act. I cannot give details as to how far county authorities are making use of it, but my impression is that they are also making adequate use of the Act. Indeed, they have every inducement to do so. May I say now that the work of local authorities as a whole in Scotland, in using the first 50 per cent. grant under the old Act and now the subsidy under the 1930 Act for the purpose of replacing uninhabitable houses and slum clearance, is really worthy of high praise.

Mr. McGOVERN: The Under-Secretary has given the figure for the first three months of 1932–2,103.

Mr. SKELTON: That is for the first three months of this year, January, February and March, 1933—

Mr. McGOVERN: He gave us the figure of 1,418—

Mr. SKELTON: I apologise to hon. Members—

Mr. McGOVERN: I want to get this clear. He said that the number was 2,103 in 1932. Is that completed or approved houses?

Mr. SKELTON: I must apologise to the House. I should have left these figures to a more convenient moment. I intended to compare the first three months of the last three years, and I should have confined them to the 1930 Act. I have the figures showing the total slum clearance work done under the old 50 per cent. grant. Let me give the figures finally and, I hope, clearly. The increased activity in the use of the 1930 Act can best be judged by compar-
ing the first three months of this year with the first three months of the last two years. In the first three months of 1931 there were 518 applications, in the first three months of 1932 there were 1,107, and in the first three months of this year there were 1,413. If I were to add the houses under the old 50 per cent. grant I should get a figure even more striking for the present year.

8.56 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: There are only three points I wish to make. It is very good of the Under-Secretary to give its those figures, and we are grateful to him for the information. As to the housing situation in the rural areas I can only say that I do not know where this Act is being used. It is certainly not being used in the parts that I know. The Under-Secretary stated that the £3 subsidy is now equal to the £12 10s. subsidy when Mr. Wheatley first introduced his Act. Although that was considered a generous subsidy, it was quite inadequate for the purposes of housing in rural areas, and in fact hardly any houses were built under it. It is only because costs have now fallen that that subsidy is now a good one for the rural areas. When the Under-Secretary said that the average subsidy is worked out at £12 10s. under the Slum Clearance Act of 1930, of course he forgot to explain that naturally local authorities in their slum clearance schemes provide first for the big families, because they get. a subsidy of £2 10s. per person, and they generally leave over the small families of a single individual or a married couple, or a married couple and child, hoping that these will find alternative accommodation on their own initiative. Therefore it is only natural to find that in the early stages of the operation of the Slum Clearance Act local authorities have earned the higher rate of subsidy. But it is very far from being the case that that would be the average over the whole of Scotland.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. McKIE: What the Under-Secretary said has gone a long way to reassure those of us who represent rural areas as to what the position will be under the new conditions about to be set up. Perhaps my Liberal friends will see their
way now not to press their Amendment to a Division. We have been reminded that the question of housing is an acute problem not only in the rural areas, but in the industrial and urban districts as well. The condition of housing in every area is a matter of serious concern to every Scottish Member, and to every Member of this House. On this Amendment we have been considering once again the question of the subsidy, or a subsidy, and it shows how wise the Government were in introducing two separate Measures for housing, one for England and one for Scotland, thereby showing that they fully realise the totally different conditions that apply to rural areas and industrial areas in Scotland and in England. My hon. Friends regret the reduction of the subsidy. They fear that local authorities will not be able to do all that the Under-Secretary has suggested that they will do. There are some people in the country who regret that a subsidy is to be maintained at all. I am certainly not one of them—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that we are confined strictly to the question of the continuance of the subsidy in Scotland in rural areas only.

Mr. McKIE: This Bill is part of the Government's general scheme, and as such as accept it. I think what the Under-Secretary has said, as to what local authorities have done in the past, will reassure us as to how those authorities will proceed in the future. Housing in the agricultural areas is a very serious problem indeed. Even now, in a period of agricultural depression, there is a housing shortage, and the question naturally arises as to what is to happen when we have, as we are almost certain to have, an increased demand for housing owing to a revival in agriculture. I notice that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) laughs. Such a revival is about to come. I hope that the Government will take time by the forelock and carry on the good work that they have been doing hitherto.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 200.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hales, Harold K.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Daggar, George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanron)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dobbie, William
Hanbury, Cecil


Atkinson, Cyril
Doran, Edward
Hanley, Dennis A.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dunglass, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edwards, Charles
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Bernaye, Robert
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hirst, George Henry


Blindell, James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Horobin, Ian M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Burghley, Lord
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Butler, Richard Austen
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Goff, Sir Park
John, William


Cape, Thomas
Gower, Sir Robert
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Carver, Major William H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Ker, J. Campbell


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Clark, Frank
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Kirkwood, David


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grimston, R. V.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawson, John James


Cooper, A. Duff
Grundy, Thomas W.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cove, William G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Leonard, William


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lewis, Oswald


Cross, R. H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Liddall, Walter S.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Owen, Major Goronwy
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Parkinson, John Allen
Spens, William Patrick


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Penny, Sir George
Stevenson, James


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lunn, William
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mabane, William
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Summersby, Charles H.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Potter, John
Sutcliffe, Harold


McEntee, Valentine L.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Pybus, Percy John
Thompson, Luke


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Thamson, Sir Frederick Charles


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thorne, William James


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rankin, Robert
Tinker, John Joseph


Magnay, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rea, Waiter Russell
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Margesson, Capt, Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Milner, Major James
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Moreing, Adrian C.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Morgan, Robert H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Morrison, William Shephard
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Rt. Hon. sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)



Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smithers, Waldron
Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies.


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.



 align="center"NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Greene, William P. C.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remer, John R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W, (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hellgere, Captain F. F. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Bracken, Brendan
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Levy, Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, Citv)
Macdonatd, Sir Mirdoch (Inverness)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
McGovern, John
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Maxton, James



Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davison, Sir William Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Mr. Charles Williams and Lieut.-


Donner, P. W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Colonel Windsor-Clive.


Eastwood, John Francis
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[9.2 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bernays, Robert
Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Milner, Major James


Cove, William G.
John, William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M, (Lanark, Hamilton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
McGovern, John
Mr. Maclay and Mr. Dingle Foot.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Adrian C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morrison, William Shephard


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moss, Captain H. J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Munro, Patrick


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goldie, Noel B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
North, Captain Edward T.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nunn, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greene, William P. C.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Atkinson, Cyril
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Penny, Sir George


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hales, Harold K.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hanley, Dennis A.
Potter, John


Blindell, James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rankin, Robert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Suchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Burnett, John George
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Horobin, Ian M.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Howard, Tom Forrest
Runge, Norah Cecil


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Carver, Major William H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clarke, Frank
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clayton Dr. George C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Scone, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Selley, Harry R.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Knebworth, Viscount
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Craven-Ellis, William
Levy, Thomas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Liddall, Walter S.
Smithers, Waldron


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookthank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cross, R. H.
Mabane, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Spens, William Patrick


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stevenson, James


Dunglass, Lord
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Magnay, Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sutcliffe, Harold


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Martin, Thomas B.
Thompson, Luke


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Merriman, Sr F. Boyd
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)




Ward, Lt.,-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whyts, Jardine Bell
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walleend)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton(S'v'noaks)


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wills, Wilfrid D.



Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wells, Sydney Richard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sir Frederick Thomson and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Womersley, Waiter James

9.12 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move in page 2, line 11, to leave out the words, "three pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words,
not more than nine or less than three pounds as the Department may determine.
The object of the Amendment is to prevent in one case too much money being given—perhaps more money than is necessary—and in another case to see that adequate subsidy is paid to enable houses to be let to lowly paid wage-earners at rents which must necessarily be uneconomic. If we expect local authorities to build houses to be let at uneconomic rents, we must pay adequate subsidies. One hon. Member in the Scottish Grand Committee said that he would vote against our Amendment if he were assured that houses could be provided on the basis of a £3 subsidy. It is clear from correspondence which I and other hon. Members have had, that houses cannot possibly be provided in many areas of Scotland, by local authorities or by private enterprise, on the basis of a £3 subsidy, to be let, as the Government according to a later Amendment intend, at rents of not more than 6s. or in exceptional cases 6s. 6d. a week. My hon. Friends and I are assured that in many districts in Scotland the finance of such a scheme is fantastic, and that it will be impossible to get houses built on the basis of those figures. Indeed, I think it is clear from statements in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Under-Secretary said that if the local authorities were to build houses with a £3 subsidy, they would themselves have to shoulder, more than the burden of the £4 10s., which was laid upon them under the Wheatley Act of 1924. The hon. Gentleman said:
Surely it is not too much to ask that, if necessary, the local authorities, in building £3 subsidy houses, should be prepared to spend rather more than the £4 10s. If there is going to be variation of subsidy why should not the local subsidy vary instead of the State subsidy? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 7th March, 1933; col. 55.]
But where are those houses wanted? They are mainly wanted, especially for
the lowly-paid wage-earner, and the unemployed man with a family, in the most distressed areas of Scotland, where already the burdens upon the local authorities threaten to break those authorities. One of the great problems facing this House is how to enable such local authorities to continue to carry their existing responsibilities let alone building houses to be let at substantially lower rents than they have hitherto received with only one-third of the subsidy which has hitherto been payable. It could not have been very easy for the Israelites in Egypt to make bricks without straw, but it will be quite impossible for the local authorities of Scotland, especially in the distressed areas, to make houses to let at 6s. a week with a subsidy of only £3. Again, the Under-Secretary of State, on the same day and in the course of the same Debate, said that local authorities would work in their operations under Clause 1 with their operations under the Slum Clearance Act of 1930, and he said:
If you can show that in a large number of cases the contribution is less than £4 10s."—
that is, the contribution under the slum clearance schemes—
surely, as a make-weight, it is not unreasonable, in the case of a local authority working out a slum clearance plan, rebuilding uninhabitable houses and combining it with the provision of houses for low-paid wage earners with a £3 subsidy, to ask the Committee to take into account the fact that slum clearance is done at a rate less than Parliament anticipated…It is not an unsound proposition that you may have to put on a local authority in certain conditions, a greater subsidy than you put upon the State, especially when you recollect that up to date exactly the opposite has been the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 7th March, 1933; col. 58.]
But I say that at this date, when local authorities are faced with the enormous financial problem with which they are confronted now, when the housing conditions are worse, this is not the time when you can call upon them to shoulder this extra burden in respect of housing. In, deed, it is only in the minority of cases that the local authorities can get their slum clearance done at a lower rate than £4 10s. The Minister in that same speech
showed that out of 6,000 houses, which were the figures that he had at that date, no fewer than 4,000 either received the full subsidy or more, and only 2,000 received less than the full subsidy. My first point, therefore, is that we are putting too much upon the local authorities, if we allow the Bill to be passed in its present form, and expect them to build houses for low-paid wage earners to be let at 6s. with only a £3 subsidy.
This point is strengthened if we have regard to this further point, that out of 6,553 houses erected last year, most of them with a subsidy of £9 but some with a subsidy of £12 10s., only 978 were let at a rent of less than £17. It is true that the local authorities under the provisions of this Bill will have greater latitude in fixing the rents—that has been provided for by the latter part of Clause 1, which cuts out the relations between the rents of new houses and the rents of houses built under the Wheatley Act—but it is impossible to bridge that gap. The local authorities receive £9 and yet only let 978 out of 6,553 houses at a rent of less than £17, and if they are now to be asked to let at a rent of £15 12s., it will require a greater subsidy than £3.
There is another point. I do not believe the houses will be built for this £3 subsidy. The Under-Secretary of State reminded us, quite rightly, in Committee that a statutory obligation will rest upon local authorities to provide houses for the working classes in their areas, but the question is, How quickly will they provide them; how boldly will they face up to their responsibility? They are moving faster now than they have moved for some years past, but whereas they furnished returns under the 1930 Act in which they said that 56,000 houses would be required in three years, in the first two years they have built only about 20,000 houses; and if they are now going to receive only £3 instead of £9 as a subsidy, the inevitable deduction from those facts is that they will move more slowly still. Indeed, I am assured that when the local authorities met the Under-Secretary of State a few weeks ago he left this impression upon them—and I would ask him, if he is able to remove it to-day, to do so—that provided they work under the 1930 Act for slum clearance, no pressure will be exer-
cised upon them to build houses under the £3 subsidy. I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to reply to that at once, but I can assure him that I am most credibly informed, from a source which it is impossible to disregard, that that was the impression left upon the local authorities by his speech, and I hope he will take the opportunity of this Debate to remove it, if in fact the Government are serious about intending houses to be built for the low-paid wage earners with the aid of this £3 subsidy.
A great deal depends, in the Government's admission, on the falling of prices. The Government have said time after time that a £3 subsidy now is better for the local authorities than a £9 subsidy was in 1924, when Mr. Wheatley's Act was first passed, but in fact that £9 subsidy under Mr. Wheatley's Act was not sufficient to enable houses to be built for those who needed them most, the poorer wage earners. It was not sufficient for that task to which the Government rightly attach so much importance at the present time. It is only as housing costs have fallen that it has become possible more and more to build for the lower-paid wage earners, and it will be impossible now to build at the rents which the Government are expecting the local authorities to charge unless a higher rate of subsidy is given. Further than that, the Government tell us frequently that it is their policy to bring about a rise in prices. Let not the Government be too defeatist. They may be successful. They have not very often been successful, but they may yet be successful in achieving the object of their policy. We may get a rise in prices, and if we do, then indeed the £3 subsidy will be still more hopelessly inadequate.
Then there is the fact that no provision is made in this Bill for a man who is earning between 40s. and 60s. a week. The Under-Secretary of State in his speech on Second Reading referred to the report of the Consultative Council on Local Administration and General Questions on the problem of proper rent to be charged to men who were earning different rates of wages, and he rather rebuked my hon. Friends opposite for what he considered their ignorance of this very important report. If one refers to Appendix I of that report, one finds
that the Council considered that a man and his wife, with an income of £3 per week should be entitled to receive a. subsidy house at a rent of not more than £25. That means that they came to the conclusion that one-fifth is a fair proportion of a man's income to spend on rent. They worked out a scale and, working up the scale to the highest point one finds that, where a man with a number of children is earning £6 a week, they consider if he has sufficient dependants that he is entitled to a subsidy house at £25 or less, thus preserving their principle that for a man and his wife without dependants one-fifth is the proper proportion of income to be spent on rent. The Government have adopted that principle, and they are reserving their low-rented houses, which enjoy the advantage of this subsidy, for the man with 40s. a week.
We find, however, that, according to the calculations of the Government, the building society houses would be let at a rent of about £30. Adding 4s. in the pound for rates, that means £36, which would be suitable for a man with no dependants earning 15s. a week. Suppose he has dependants, then he ought to have a cheaper house, but there is no provision for the man earning £3 15s. a week with dependants, and no provision for any man earning between and £3 15s. a week. This is a vitally important question. It is not merely a question of a man having to economise and not spending so much on cinemas and entertainments. Scientific research has shown that a man would be better off by remaining with his family in an insanitary house in a slum, if he can get that house at a low rent, than by moving into a fine airy house and having to pay a higher proportion of his wage in rent than he ought to pay. A very careful investigation has recently been carried out by the medical officer of health in Stockton-on-Tees. There 710 people were moved from an insanitary area and put in a beautiful new slum clearance estate at a place called Mount Pleasant. They were watched for five years, and at the end of that period it was found that, far from being healthier as a result, their health was not so good and the rate of sickness had largely increased. They had an investigation to find out why it was. They looked into the drains, sewerage and sanitation—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They should have looked into the stomachs.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: But, as my hon. Friend says, not into the stomachs. They found that was the difficulty, and that the people were spending such a high proportion of their wages on rent for these new houses that they were worse off there than in the old slum. It will be useless to provide new building society houses for people who cannot afford to pay or who, if they manage to pinch and scrape to pay the rent, deny themselves and their families the essentials for a healthy life. If the Government will agree to give us this valuable subsidy, it can be varied. It will be possible in areas where the £3 subsidy is sufficient to pay no more than £3. I agree that there are some areas where £3 is ample, and there may be some where it is too much. I am not perfectly convinced that there are areas where they can do it without any subsidy at all, but I am not convinced to the contrary. There are, however, a great many areas, where the housing conditions are worse and where there is the greatest need for housing activities, where houses cannot be built on the basis of the £3 subsidy. There you will be flinging the man earning over 40s. a week back upon the building societies and upon such houses as those societies will be able to provide and at such rents as they may choose to charge. I would therefore urge the Government to arm themselves with this additional power, which I am sure the House would be willing to grant. It can be left either to the uncontrolled discretion of the Department of Health or it can be dealt with by setting up a body like the committee which was constituted under the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1931, to advise the Government on the allocation of these valuable subsidies according to the needs of each area. That committee worked admirably, and I have heard of no heart-burning over their decisions in awarding different subsidies in different parts of the country. I therefore urge upon the Government the importance of taking this power so as to enable, on the one hand, due economy to be observed in the payment of subsidies, and, on the other hand, to give where it is necessary adequate subsidies to ensure that houses can be let at economic rents to those men who need them.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: We have had an interesting speech from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) which has covered a good deal of ground. I should like, in replying to him, to concentrate my attention on the actual Amendment. My right hon. and gallant Friend presupposes that if the Amendment were accepted there would be, as it were, a pool from which the Department of Health would bring out whatever subsidy they thought proper for the needs of any particular locality. I venture on that point to repeat what I said in Committee, that that would mean that in each housing proposal for which a subsidy was available there would be endless discussions as to the exact amount that each area ought to get. The precedent of the 1931 Rural Housing Act, on which my right hon. and gallant Friend relied, is not on all fours, because that was strictly limited both in scope and in time. Its object was to give special subsidy assistance to the more out of the way districts of Scotland where building was more expensive. Only 500 houses were provided, and there was one operation to decide how the houses should be allocated. As my right hon. and gallant Friend says, the decision was finally in the hands of the Government, and I am not surprised to find that he hears no complaints, because out of the total of 500, the number allocated to Caithness was 100. I do not think that that is a precedent that ought to be followed by this House, and I do not recommend its adoption.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Under-Secretary should mention that they were allocated by a committee.

Mr. SKELTON: It is not on the allocation of that 500 houses that I base my opposition to this Amendment. It is because it will put upon the Department of Health a duty which would involve endless and difficult discussions, and in my judgment useless and otiose discussions, with every local authority asking for a subsidy. It is not the first time that the question has been raised as to whether it was not possible to localise subsidies to a greater extent
than is done in the main Housing Acts, and in each case, with the exception of the special 1931 Act, Governments of all shades of opinion and the House have rejected the view that the amount of the subsidy should be localised in each case. So much for the administrative side of the proposal of my right hon. Friend.
He turned to the question of whether, if we leave the £3 subsidy in its present form, it will serve the purpose which we intend, that is to say, the provision of houses to be let at not more than 6s. or in exceptional cases 6s. 6d. to low wage earners in overcrowded districts. My right hon. Friend is not really up-to-date in his particulars with regard to the cost of housing. I will give the House one or two figures with regard to the actual cost of houses. They will be the net cost in each case excluding land, roads, etc. In some districts such as Glasgow, £50 or £60 has to be added to the net cost for that purpose, but in the smaller towns a very much smaller figure would suffice. These figures were not in my possession on the Second Reading of the Bill on the 9th February. In Glasgow, for a three-apartment tenement, the net cost is now down to as low as £231, varying between £231 and £274. A four-apartment tenement is down to from £258 to £271. In Edinburgh the figures are even more striking. A three-apartment tenement, again exclusive of land, is down to £243 net. In another case it is £254, and the average price of a block of three and four-apartment tenements is £257.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are these blocks two or three stories high?

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I have not that information, but they are certainly not more than three stories. I will let the hon. Member know later. Let me turn to the small towns. At King-horn the cost of a three-apartment flat is £249 net; at Kirriemuir, £251; at Bath-gate, £264; at Buckhaven, £250, and at Markinch another Fife burgh, £264. These are the latest available figures and show how the progressive decline in the cost of housing construction is going on. They show that the figures I gave even on Second Reading are to some extent out-of-date. It is in view of figures of that sort and the response that is being made to the pressure for lower figures, that I
feel that I am entitled to say that in our view the £3 subsidy in a great majority of cases will be amply sufficient to provide the houses required without any contribution from the local authorities larger than £4 10s.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House what the rents of those houses are?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not propose to give that because I am dealing with the cost of houses. The question of rent does not arise here because we know that the rent under this subsidy is to be fixed at 6s. or 6s. 6d. The rent charged by the local authorities for the houses I have quoted is a matter for themselves and does not concern my argument.

Mr. LEONARD: I did not gather who compiled the figures which the Under-Secretary gave for Glasgow.

Mr. SKELTON: I cannot say at this moment how the figures were compiled.

Mr. LEONARD: May I for the purpose of comparison give figures for the 10th January of this year, which were drawn up by responsible officials under Glasgow Corporation, of the cost of building alone in Glasgow of flatted houses four in a block? They are: three-apartment £275 and four-apartment £309; for three-apartment tenements, £274, and four-apartment tenements, £289.

Mr. SKELTON: I understand now that the figures which I gave are actual tender prices for schemes submitted this year. If there is any further point which the hon. Member desires to raise, we might discuss it in private. My right hon. Friend made considerable play—and I am not criticising him—with the view that the 1924 subsidy, although it is more than sufficient in many cases now, was less than sufficient in the early days to enable the local authorities to get off with the original contribution of only £4 10s. contemplated in the Wheatley Act. I have not got the figures for Scotland as a whole and I would not attempt to give them to the House; but this is the significant figure: that in Glasgow, taking the whole of the 1924 houses erected from the beginning until now, the average rate contribution has been only £3 12s. My right hon. Friend should recollect the very considerable advantage
that the local authority gets by an increase of occupiers' rates in the houses built under these subsidies, and then he will see I think that the fears which he entertains are to a large extent groundless and to some extent imaginary.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That really does not meet my point, nor, indeed, the interruption from the hon. Member opposite as to the rent. The whole point is that most of these houses are let at rents which are beyond the means of the low wage-earners. If they were let at anything approaching the rent which the Government now propose of 6s. a week, the cost to the local authorities would be so much the more.

Mr. SKELTON: I was attempting to deal with one point at a time. The point with which I was dealing was that it was a useless argument to say that the 1924 subsidy is now more than sufficient because for so long it was less than sufficient.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: At the rent—that was the point.

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I cannot go into every point of my right hon. and gallant Friend's argument. Let me now deal with the matter when a 6s. rent is charged, and that will complete what I have to say with regard to my right hon. and gallant Friend's speech. Where a house costs, all in, £300—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Including the land?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, I said, "all in." Where a house costs, all in, £300, and the rate of interest is 4 per cent., the rate contribution on a 6s. rent which it will be necessary for the local authority to make will be £2 19s. 9d., that is assuming the owners' rate is 4s. in the £, which is a very fair average for Scotland. With a rent of 6s. 6d. the rate contribution will be £1 16s. Where the all in cost of the house is £325—an ample figure, I think, in view of those which I have already given —and the rate of interest is 4 per cent., and the owners' rate is 4s. in the £, the local authority's rate contribution on a rent of 6s. will be £4 4s. 11d. and on a rent of 6s. 6d. £3 1s. 2d. None of these rate contributions is so high as the rate contribution contemplated by the Wheatley Act. All of them are under £4 10s.; and in the case of the £300 house the contribution is much below £4 10s.
If one take interest, at 3½ per cent. instead of 4 per cent. with the other factors remaining the same, the rate contribution on the £300 house with a 6s. rent is £1 13s. 9d. and on a 6s. 6d. rent is the paltry sum of 19s. 1d. In the case of the £325 house with a 6s. rent the rate contribution is £2 16s. 7d., and with a rent of 6s. 6d. it is £1 12s. 10d. I will not attempt to inquire what the effect of a higher owners' rate would be upon these figures, for I think the House will agree that a calculation based upon an owners' rate of 4s. in the is a fair calculation speaking for Scotland as a whole; and when the rate contribution is so small as I have stated, that obviously allows a very considerable margin, in case the owners' rate grows to a higher level, before the figure of £4 10s. is reached. I would like to say that I appreciate most fully the interest of my right hon. Friend in the matter of satisfying himself that the £3 subsidy is really to be of value. I also appreciate most fully the great interest he took in housing in Scotland, and, if I may add a personal note, the great pleasure that I had in working with him for a time as his Under-Secretary, but I do venture to say to him that it is possible to be unduly pessimistic in this matter. I am satisfied that even now the fall in housing costs is by no means at an end, and that the great majority of local authorities will be able to make use of the £3 subsidy and not themselves be liable for a rate contribution of more than £4 10s. In these circumstances, and with that prospect ahead of us, I urge the House not to change the system entirely by putting all the subsidies into a pool and entrusting the Department of Health or any other Department with the duty of deciding in each particular instance what the appropriate contribution out of the pool should be, because I think that system would be bad administratively and unnecessary from the point of view of making use of the £3 subsidy, speaking of Scotland as a whole.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I would like to show that in my opinion, at any rate, there ought to be some variation of the subsidy, and to say that the observations of the Under-Secretary have provided an argument in favour of it. In the first figures which he gave us relating to the cost of
building houses he said the cost was the cost apart from the land, which in Glasgow would be higher than in most other parts of the country, particularly rural areas. He said a figure of £50 or £60 would have to be added for the land in the case of Glasgow.

Mr. SKELTON: And roads, etc.

Mr. MACLEAN: My point is that if in large cities like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Dundee we pay higher prices for land than elsewhere, the probabilities are that we may require higher all-in costs for the house itself. If he compares the figures he gave later for the smaller boroughs, like Buckhaven and Kinghorne, with the figures for Glasgow, without the cost of the land being added, he will find that the cost of building houses in King-home, Buckhaven and the other small boroughs is not far short of the cost he has mentioned for Glasgow and Edinburgh, without the cost of the land being added there—all-in prices, I mean.

Mr. SKELTON: I said that all the figures which I was going to give—and I gave a long list—were net prices, exclusive of land, road charges, etc., so that we might be able to compare like with like.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: And the all-in cost with regard to the Glasgow houses he mentioned. If land purchased for building purposes is cheaper in those smaller areas, there will not be the necessity for the same kind of subsidy; that justifies, in a manner, the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a matter of a pool, of getting all the subsidy granted by the Treasury placed in a pool, to be set aside to be paid out to Scottish shipbuilding areas, and of saying that so much is to be taken out in accordance with the needs of the particular district, over the £3 mentioned. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned a pool. I should rather have thought that the cities could tell from their own experience what it costs them to finance the erection of houses. He could fix with almost exact approximation the amount that would have to be set aside, in the variation of subsidy, for various towns in Scotland.
As it stands, the Bill when passed, if it is passed, will place upon the localities
in Scotland, as localities, the burden of bearing out of their rates the amount of the subsidy which the Government ought to pay. The 'Scottish Health Department will be placing upon localities in Scotland the burden of bearing housing expenditure, in the same manner that other Departments have placed upon the localities burdens which ought to be borne by the nation. We will vote in favour of the Amendment, because we believe that, with the reduction provided for in the Bill, it would be fairer to the districts in Scotland, and much more equitable in the administration of the subsidy, if the Government were to make the subsidy variable as requisite, and would agree to insert the Amendment as it has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the Amendment moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), and I hope that he can give some assurance to the House that he intends to carry this Amendment to a Division, because I can assure him that my Socialist throat is getting tired of supporting Liberal Amendments and of forcing Liberal Members into the Lobby against their will.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If the hon. Member charges his memory aright—and I have the Committee reports here to assist him —I do not think that he will be able to name a single case in which we have not divided upon our Amendments.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am not accusing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends of refusing to divide; I am only accusing them of my having to use my voice to compel them to do so. The voices of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are more faint in calling for a Division than they are against protecting against a reduction in subsidy. We are willing to concede that this is a very reasonable Amendment. We think, in view of the failure of the Government to concede the whole amount of the housing subsidy, that it is a modest request on the part of the Liberal Members to ask the Government for a variation of subsidy in the localities throughout Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made out a very fine case for a variation of subsidy
in many areas. He gave us prices in connection with the cost of building, and he found that there was a considerable difference in many areas in Scotland. We may take it that that difference is not so much in wages as in the cost of transport and materials and various other things. Houses in the north of Scotland might be as costly to build as in Glasgow, with its cheaper transport and its dearer land.
The Government are largely gambling in the cost of house-building in the future. If we are to take the assurances of the Government that they desire an increase in cost, and we take also Lord Beaverbrook's drive for an increase in wages, we may say that the cost of house-building, if the Government and Lord Beaverbrook are to be equally successful, will be considerably increased during the coming years. I ask the Government to reconsider this question of the variation of subsidy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness stated that the Government had not had many successes. I do not intend to discuss, and I shall not be at liberty to discuss, their successes, but I think that they have been peculiarly successful in the things they have attempted in the way of economy. This is one more of the successes, in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has backed them all through. There have been much meaner reductions than this, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been into the Division Lobby to support the Government on reductions in other fields than housing. We are, however, perfectly willing always to have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's support in anything progressive which will improve the conditions of the people of Scotland. When I heard him speaking to-night, making that very fine appeal to the Government, both denunciatory and by way of impassioned appeal, I thought that we might expect to have him taking the market places and the soap box, in order to appeal to the multitude and against the Government.
This is a particularly modest request. Having received the assurances of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he intends to carry this to a Division—it becomes rather tiresome to sit here if there is no intention to divide, and we do not approve of hon. Members airing their
thoughts without carrying them into the Division Lobby—we can add what small numbers we possess to the larger numbers of the Liberal party, in the hope that, with the addition of the still larger Labour opposition, we may be able to smash the designs of the Government to reduce the housing subsidy.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland accused my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) of undue pessimism. That pessimism is not confined to my right hon. and gallant Friend or to the Members of this House. On 3rd March last the annual meeting of the Scottish National Housing and Town Planning Committee was held. If my information be correct, the delegates at that meeting were of the opinion that it would not be possible to build houses with a £3 subsidy, to let at 6s. or 6s. 6d. a week. We suggest, therefore, that the apprehensions which have been brushed aside are not confined to these benches or to hon. Members. That apprehension is very general throughout Scotland. Even the arguments that have been advanced in resisting this Amendment do not entirely bear on the point at issue. It was not disputed by the Under-Secretary, in his reply, that there is still a great deal of variation in the all-in cost of house-building as between one district and another. He gave us an average figure of 4s. for owner's rates, but owner's rates may vary quite substantially as between one district and another; while I do not think anyone will dispute the fact that rates of wages are not uniform, but tend to be substantially higher in the big cities than in the smaller towns and in the rural areas. In spite of what the Minister has said, I think that, if I may take the example of Dundee, we shall have very great difficulty there in building three-apartment houses at less than £330, or, at the lowest, £320, even at present prices. I listened with great interest to the estimate which the Under-Secretary put forward regarding the contribution that would have to be made by the local authorities. There is a considerable disparity between the estimate that he put forward and the estimate that I have received from local sources in Dundee.

Miss HORSBRUGH: May I ask my hon. Friend if he got that estimate from the local authority, or from the local housing association? Is it an official estimate from the local association?

Mr. FOOT: It is not an official estimate, but it is the best information that I have been able to procure. I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend the information privately.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I have seen it.

Mr. FOOT: My hon. Friend has probably seen it, but the best information that I have been able to procure puts the local contribution under this scheme at some thing in the neighbourhood of £7 10s. If that were so, or if it were anything like that amount, we should have very great difficulty in persuading our local authority to meet the housing needs of the area. Where is the economy going to be found—if economy is to be taken as one of the aims of this Bill—if you are merely going to transfer the burden from the national to the local exchequer? I think it has been generally admitted in recent years by members of all parties, either expressly or by implication, that it is far better that burdens should be borne by the national Exchequer, when they are borne equitably over the whole country, than that they should be placed upon the local exchequer. That was the whole principle behind the De-rating Act of a few years ago. I cannot see where the economy will come in if, as I believe will happen, the burden is merely transferred from national to local shoulders.
There was one point in the speech of my right hon. Friend which was not cleared up in the answer of the Under-Secretary. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the impression has come to prevail in Scotland that the Government will look to the local authorities simply to concentrate upon slum clearance, and that the local authorities will not be pressed to carry out their duties in other respects. I do not think the Under-Secretary dealt with that point, and, as that impression has gained, we believe, very general currency, we should be grateful if he would deal with it.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry that I did not deal with that point, but the reason
was simply that there was no meeting between myself and the local authorities in connection with housing. I think the meeting referred to was a meeting which I had with the National Housing and Town Planning Committee. It was not a meeting with the local authorities, but was a private meeting, of which no reports appeared in the Press, and the statement that particular impressions were gained at a private meeting between myself and representatives of that body involves a charge which, of course, it is extremely difficult to counter.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I had not the slightest intention of making a charge when I mentioned the matter. On the contrary, I felt sure that the hon. Gentleman and the Government wanted the local authorities to make full use of their powers to provide houses for low-paid wage-earners under this £3 subsidy, and I thought I was helping the Government by bringing the point back to their attention and giving them the opportunity of making a statement.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry if I have failed to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's offer of assistance, but I did not know whether the hand was clenched, or whether it was spread in helpful gesture. Certainly, there was no desire in my mind, at the meeting to which I have referred, to give any such impression, and, looking over the Departmental notes of the meeting, I cannot see any ground for any such impression. Without making too much of the matter, I might perhaps suggest that second-hand evidence as to what Ministers, or even Under-Secretaries, say at private meetings, is not very helpful to the House in a Debate on a Housing Bill, but, if it was intended to be helpful, I am delighted to hear it. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, and any Members of the deputation who may have gained that impression, that both were entirely wrong.

Question put, "That the words 'three pounds' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 49.

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[10.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cross, R. H.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duggan, Hubert John
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Apsley, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eastwood, John Francis
Ker, J. Campbell


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Atkinson, Cyril
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Emryt-Evant, P. V.
Knebworth, Viscount


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leckie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blindell, James
Fox, Sir Gilford
Lewis, Oswald


Boulton, W. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Liddall, Walter S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Mabane, William


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Han. J. R. (Seaham)


Burnett, John George
Goldie, Noel B.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McKie, John Hamilton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Greene, William P. C.
Magnay, Thomas


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Carver, Major William H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cattle Stewart, Earl
Guntton, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hales, Harold K.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hanbury, Cecil
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'f'd & Chisw'k)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Adrian C.


Conant, R. J. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cooper, A. Duff
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Craven-Ellis, William
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Munro, Patrick


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Nail, Sir Joseph


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


North, Captain Edward T.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Thompson, Luke


Nunn, William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Pearson, William G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Penny, Sir George
Scone, Lord
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Potter, John
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rankin, Robert
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Spens, William Patrick
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Held, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Womersley, Walter James


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stevenson, James
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Remer, John R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.



Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Strauss, Edward A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lord Erskine.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bernays, Robert
Hirst, George Henry
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Maxton, James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Milner, Major James


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rea, Walter Russell


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Maclay and Mr. Dingle Foot.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from the word "that," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the rent charged for any of the houses shall not, except with the consent of the Department, exceed six shillings a week, and shall in no ease exceed six shillings and sixpence a week.
Those who were Members of the Scottish Standing Committee are very familiar with the fact that in the course of the proceedings on the Bill, the Committee decided that, instead of leaving the rent for the houses which are to get the £3 subsidy to be determined by the Department of Health, it should be fixed in the Bill itself at a figure of 6s. in a normal case, or, in exceptional cases, up to 6s. 6d. In view of that being the general desire of the Committee, and, I think, really meeting the opinion of the House as a whole, I will not say more on the subject.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Department to reimburse part of losses sustained under guarantees to building and other societies.)

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out the word "its," and to insert instead thereof the word "their."

This is purely a question of grammar.

Amendment agreed to.

10.21 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out the word "intended."
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the houses which are to be built by building societies with the help of the Government guarantee shall, in fact, be let, and continue to be let, and not sold. We had a discussion upon the matter in the Committee upstairs when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland declared that he would give no concession, and, in fact, said that no housing
society or housing company building with the help of a-building society under the Bill would ever think of selling a house, because if it did the loan which it received from the building society would have to be paid off. That was an argument which many of us found completely unconvincing. On the contrary, from our knowledge and experience, and from that which we have since exchanged with other people, we are convinced that in fact there will be the strongest temptation to the building corporations, or whoever may be obtaining the money from the building societies, to sell the houses and turn over their money as quickly as possible. They will receive 90 per cent. from the building corporation and have to find the other 10 per cent. themselves, and there will be the strongest inducement to them to sell the houses as quickly as possible to get rid of the 10 per cent. loan, and to make a profit. I think that the conditions will probably be very good for making a profit.
The houses to be built by the building societies will be out of the reach of the means of a great many of the working class, and it may well be possible that, instead of being provided for to a large extent, as they are at present, by the local authorities, in future only the man earning less than 40s, a week will be provided for by the local authorities. Therefore, for people earning more than 40s. a week the market will, in fact, be a sellers' market. In these circumstances, it will be possible for the builders, not only to turn over their money quickly, which is what they want to do, but to make a profit in the course of that operation. That, therefore, is my first point. If we are to ensure that there will be an adequate supply of houses to let for the low-paid wage earners and for other members of the working class, the need of which has been stressed by every commission and committee that has inquired into the subject, including the Marley Commission on rent restriction, whose report the Government have adopted, and upon which they have based a Bill which we are at the present time passing through the House of Commons, we must ensure that the houses for which a special guarantee are given will, in fact, be let and not sold.
My second point is, that as the Bill is framed the builder can sell the house at
once. There is no need for him to keep the man in occupation for a year or two years. He can sell the house at once, and there is nothing that the Government can do under this Bill to prevent that from being done. If this is really a Bill for getting houses built by building societies to be let, it is absolutely necessary to strike out the word "intended." In his argument against our proposal the Under-Secretary said that at the end of 40 years, even after the guarantee had expired, the builder would be unable to sell the houses. I am not much concerned about what happens at the end of 40 years. If the Under-Secretary can suggest the form of words to get round the difficulty I am willing to accept it. I want to make certain, and the House wants to make certain that during the period of the Government guarantee the houses shall not be sold but shall remain to be let. In the Second Reading Debate I asked the Secretary of State a question on this very point. I asked him what guarantee he had that the houses to be built with the assistance of the State guarantee were to be built to be let and would not in fact be sold. The Secretary of State replied specifically. He said:
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland was good enough to send me beforehand a statement of certain questions that he proposed to put to me. I will answer those questions specifically. He asked me, first, about the houses which are to be financed by the building societies. The guarantee is only to apply to houses to let."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1933; col. 489, Vol. 274.]
That was the assurance which the Secretary of State gave to the House. I hope the Under-Secretary will make it quite clear that that assurance will be implemented to the letter, that these houses will be built only to let and that during the currency of the State guarantee they will not be sold. We attach great importance to this provision, because we believe that it will be disastrous if a number of these houses are sold. We do not want to see labour in Scotland anchored to particular districts and unable to move. We hope that as the depression lifts and as industry revives there will be here and there in Scotland opportunities for employment for men who, if they are free, will be able to take them, but if they are anchored to their houses they will not be able to go to the places where they can find employment.
Commission after commission, inquiry after inquiry, committee after committee have emphasised the importance of the principle of the mobility of labour, and it is because we attach such great importance to that principle, and for the other reasons that I have given, that I hope the Government and the House will accept the Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: This Amendment was discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee, which voted upon it, and rejected it. The Liberal party, led by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, did not vote on that occasion.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I left that point out in my speech, because the Under-Secretary gave us an undertaking in Committee that he would consider this point with a view of devising an Amendment on Report stage; and it was on that account only that we withdrew our Amendment and refused to vote for the other proposal. We refused to do so because we received an undertaking that the Under-Secretary would consider this matter; he was obviously much impressed by the arguments which we put forward.

Mr. SKELTON: I only said that the Scottish Committee had rejected this proposal and that the Liberal party did not vote for it. I said that I would look into this matter in consultation with the building societies, although, clearly, the decision of the Committee afterwards would make it unnecessary to carry out that undertaking. As the right hon. and gallant Member and his friends did not vote I thought it only right to say that I would make further inquiries, but I gave no undertaking that I would frame any Amendment of the kind suggested. I said that in my opinion the proposal was impracticable. But I have made further inquiries, with the result that, speaking on general considerations, I have ascertained that not only Scottish building societies but certain English building societies come into the work of providing loans for houses under construction. The English building societies in their operations under the English Bill will operate under the words "intended to be let." I suggest that it would be extremely unsound to make English building societies lending money for English houses operate under one arrangement
and the same building societies lending money for Scotch houses to be obliged to operate under another arrangement. That is one of the results of my discussions with building societies.
Another practical point emerges. Suppose that the borrower of money for the building of a house, a builder or a building corporation, were to go bankrupt before the loan was repaid, the only recourse the building society would have would be to foreclose and take the house into their own possession. The natural sequel would be not that the building society would hold the house themselves but would sell it. If they have to sell houses under the proviso that in no circumstances are the houses to be anything but let they will not have a free but a restricted and limited market for the sale. The building societies point out that that would be an extremely undesirable position for them to be put in, in Scotland alone. The contention of my right hon. Friend comes to this: The State and the local authorities are going to guarantee a part of the loan, and that therefore we ought to insist that the houses in all circumstances can only be let. My right hon. Friend thinks it is important that the houses should not be sold during the continuance of the guarantee, and that so long as the State and the local authorities have this liability the houses should be for letting purposes only. My answer is that I cannot figure a case where the sale could take place without the guarantee being fully met by the loan being repaid. If one were in the position of the borrower and owner of a house which one holds, and then one sells the house, one would be left with a liability to repay and with no assets. The dictates of common sense would ensure that the first thing one would do with the purchase price would be to repay the building society's bill.
My right hon. Friend has urged that almost inevitably a large number of these houses will be sold at an early date. What are the facts with regard to private enterprise houses under the existing Act? I am told that in Glasgow alone there are some 4,000 houses which have been built with the old subsidy by private builders for letting purposes. So far as I know no appreciable number of those houses has been sold; the great bulk have been retained for letting purposes. If that
could be done in the past, we hope and believe that, with the reduced cost of building, houses will be built for the working classes, who do not desire to buy but to let them, and that there will be far less inducement than in the case of the 4,000 I have mentioned for selling to take place. For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am afraid that while the Under-Secretary may have kept his pledge he has not fulfilled the hope of the Mover of the Amendment. If the word "intended" remains in the Clause the position will be that the houses can be sold under certain conditions. We do not desire that in the conditions existing in Scotland houses in the hands of a building society shall be saleable. We know what the hon. Gentleman may say. The intentions of the Government may be the best in the world, but the old proverb has it that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I hope the House is not going to set itself up as a paving contractor to the nether regions. I had hoped that the Government would delete the word "intended" and allow the Clause to provide that the houses were to be built or acquired for the purpose of letting particularly to the working class. Since, in the provisions of the Bill, the rents to be charged for the houses are set out, one would imagine that all the houses coming under the guarantee were to be for letting purposes only.
I need not describe the housing problem in Scotland to the Under-Secretary for Scotland or any of his colleagues now on the Front Bench—with the possible exception of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department and we hope to make him a Scotsman before the end of this Debate. But the Under Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues know what Scottish housing conditions are to-day, and in bringing this Bill before the House they are under the impression that they are doing something to increase the number of healthy dwellings available for the working-class in Scotland. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the retention of this word "intended" will
affect that purpose—whether to a greater or a lesser degree only time can tell. Its deletion would make it impossible for these houses to be sold and would remove a feature which I am sure the Under Secretary himself would be the last to wish to have in this Bill. I hope that even at this late stage he will consult his Scottish colleagues with a view to ensuring that this Bill shall be what we expected it to be, a Bill for the erection or acquiring of houses for letting and not for sale.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: The Under-Secretary will remember the discussion which took place on this subject in Committee when he gave a definite undertaking that he would inquire into the matter before the Report stage, an undertaking which he has carried out, so far. We know that the dominant need in Scotland is for houses to let, and not for houses to be sold, and I am puzzled to know why in the terms of this Bill the Government have not seen their way to carry out their own avowed intention of providing houses to be let. I do not know what difficulties stand in the way. The Under-Secretary has spoken about the building societies. I had hoped, in view of the undertaking which he gave, backed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that their united ability would have got over the difficulties which the building societies evidently have raised I think we have sufficient ability in the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland to carry out what is obviously the intention of this Bill, and that is to provide houses in sufficient numbers to let, not to sell. We all know exactly what will take place if the Bill passes in its present form, and even at this late hour I appeal to the Government to make up their minds to carry out the obvious intention of the Bill. I shall be very sorry and disappointed if that intention is not carried into effect.

Amendment negatived.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
and
(c) make provision for securing that in the case of houses to be built a fair-wage clause, which complies with the requirements of any resolution of the House of Commons applicable to contracts of Government Departments and for the time being in force, is inserted in all contracts or agreements for advances between the society and its members and in all contracts for the construction of the houses.
This is a very serious position as far as the trade union movement is concerned. We are not asking for something new; we are asking for something which is inserted in every Government contract given out in this country, and not only in every Government contract, but in contracts given out by town councils, county councils, and every local authority. They all have a fair wage clause in their contracts, and why the National Government in its wisdom should bring in a Housing Bill omitting this very valuable clause is beyond me. If ever there was a time when it was essential that we should have a clause in the Bill safeguarding the interests, not only of the operatives in the building industry, but also of the employers of labour, it is now, because up till now, since the War, private enterprise has gone out of house building. Economic circumstances were of such a character that it did not pay private enterprise to build houses. Houses were required, and the Government had to step in and give power to the local authorities to go on with building them.
Now the National Government consider the time is opportune for again bringing private enterprise back into housebuilding. In order to do that, they are placing it in a favoured position. Those who are financing the building of houses are to be guaranteed by the Government, 5 per cent. interest on their money. Those building societies are posing before all Britain as philanthropic institutions—nice, kind Christian gentlemen who are going to save the situation by building houses. We Socialists know perfectly well that they are no philanthropic institutions at all. They are going into the building of houses because there is profit in it, and for nothing else. It is because it is a good paying concern, far better than lending money on which they get only 3 per cent. Not only that but this disreputable Government is going one worse. "Disreputable" is a very mild
term when you consider what they are doing. They are not only guaranteeing these smug philanthropic individuals 5 per cent. on their money for exploiting the needs of the poorer sections of the community and exploiting the conditions appertaining in Scotland. Those conditions have been admitted by the Lord President of the Council, who, when he visited Scotland, said he had no idea that the housing conditions there were of such a terrible character, and he gave us a pound extra—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment which the hon. Member is proposing has to do with guaranteeing wages. He is not referring to that now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all due respect, I am going to show the reasons why they have done such and such a thing and I am trying to connect it with reasons why they should not have done such and such a thing, exactly as I did in Committee, when it was in perfect order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member must cut short his preamble to his Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Not only are they to get this guarantee of 5 per cent. but there is no Clause in this Bill to protect the builder of the houses, either employer or employé. There is no fair wages Clause. Not only are they to get 5 per cent. on their money, but the worker and the builder of the houses is to be left to the most disreputable employer of labour that may come along. The Secretary of State for Scotland carried the Committee with him, and why? I moved this new paragraph in Committee, but it was left to the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Mckenzie Wood) to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we were going to get something in a Scottish Bill that the English had not managed to get into their Bill, and that if we got this in it would make it very awkward for the right hon. Gentleman in the Cabinet. So the Liberals rush to his assistance and turn us down. The House ought to know the tricks that they play on us—those gigantic powerful fellows they call the Liberals. The hon. Member for Perth (Lord Scone) said in the Standing Committee;
The only explanation came not from the right hon. Gentleman but from the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Sir M.
Wood). We wish to know whether that explanation is the cause of the Government's refusal to accept this Amendment. There are plenty of us on this side who believe ourselves to be good employers and who do endeavour to pay the best possible wages. We are not able nowadays to pay the wages we would like; we are obliged most unwillingly to reduce them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills); 23rd March, 1933, Col. 198.]
He went on to say that they did not want to let the bad employer get an opportunity of reducing all good employers to the level of the bad employers. The Secretary of State for Scotland on the same date said:
I am anxious, however, to secure the object which the hon. Member has in view, and we have been considering how best to do so. I find that in September, 1924, after the Housing Measure of that year became law the Department of Health for Scotland issued a circular directing the attention of local authorities to the Fair Wages Clause and pressing it upon their consideration. I intend to follow the same practice and to issue a circular directly the Bill becomes law, directing the attention of local authorities to this all-important question and inviting them to consider it on its merits. I hope that with that assurance, the hon. Member—having been met by us on some other occasions—will be satisfied in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills); 23rd March, 1933, Col. 190.]
Again the Secretary of State said:
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) reminded me of the case of certain building operatives whose wages bad not been paid although the contractor in that case had received the subsidy. Let me tell the hon. Member that since he raised that matter on the Floor of the House I have made inquiries into the case, and although I am unable to give him a definite undertaking that these men, whose interests he raised, will receive their wages, I am hopeful that the wages which these men have earned, and should have been paid, will be paid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills); 23rd March, 1933, Col. 195.]
My point is that that last statement proves conclusively that the circular of the Secretary of State is not worth the paper on which it was written. I have given absolute proof that here it is being defied in a very serious fashion. Here are individuals, who will be brought into the building of houses, who are prepared to cut prices so low that they are paying no wages at all. I brought a case to the right hon. Gentleman's notice and he admitted that such employers were in the position to get the
subsidy and then pay the workers no wages at all. We desire to safeguard the position and to ensure that all employers will be placed on an equal footing, so that no unscrupulous employer will be able to come in and undercut his fellows.
In our opinion in Scotland this is a direct attack on the trade union movement, and we will resist it with all the power at our disposal. The Secretary of State for Scotland can rest assured of that. To-night I have gone to the trouble of cutting out these extracts from his own speeches and have laid all the evidence before him to show what a very serious matter this is, and I hope the House will not be carried away, as the Committee was carried away, by the hon. and gallant Member for Banff, and vote us in Scotland down because this provision is not in the English Bill. I want the House to deal with this question on its merits: Is it right to support trade union wages and conditions? Up to now the House has considered that trade union rates of wages and conditions were not exorbitant, but right and just. It is not only the horny-handed sons of toil who will be affected, but every individual who earns an honest penny working for his livelihood. This National Government, with their generous cuts, have brought all individuals who render useful service to society down to that level The Prime Minister said that if there were to be cuts there would be cuts all round, but they are not carrying that policy to its logical conclusion. We Socialists see in this the thin end of the wedge against trade unionism. All these facts having been laid before the Secretary of State, I hope he will have the wisdom in his day and generation to accept this Amendment.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to add one or two words to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I notice that in the Memorandum issued with the initial draft of this Bill we were informed that by virtue of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, local authorities had
power, subject to certain conditions, to make payments to societies, but under that law there was no liability on the part of the Exchequer to any repayments. Under the proposal in the Bill now before the House, however, there is a provision whereby the Government may, with certain reservations, make payments to those societies. In view of the possibility of an Exchequer contribution, we are entitled to ask that there should be added, to the restrictions placed upon the issue of such sums, the restrictions referred to in the Amendment. The total power to reimburse part of the loss guaranteed to the building and other societies, should be accompanied by that restriction. I do not contemplate that there will be much antagonism to the proposal. The Government have displayed some desire to see industry organised, and they have made promises that protection would be given if there were organisation.
We put forward in this proposal a form of words which would give protection to an industry that has organised itself in a great measure. Its importance is, furthermore, related to national economy. Sir Arthur Salter has laid it down that the building trade is always the key point in the economic structure and that any improvement there would quickly radiate. We suggest that the conditions that have been negotiated under the National Joint Industrial Council of the building trade, in so far as wages are concerned, should be protected, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has stated. Anyone who is not prepared to act up to those conditions or endeavours to escape from them, should be excluded from performing any work that may in future be subject to State subsidy. It is all the more important to bear in mind that this industry, for every £100 expended in it, £80 is spent, according to the memorandum which has been prepared by an impartial committee, in remuneration. Payments made in wages should conform to those which have been brought about by negotiations between employers and employés in the industry.
I want to refer to the Memorandum presented to every hon. Member, with regard to organisation in this industry. It states:
The building industry is now so organised as to be able to produce in the most efficient manner, and in consequence at lower
costs, than at any time since the War. … The National Joint Council for the Building Industry has made full use of new inventions; it has instituted methods of standardisation; and it is doing notable pioneer work in the direction of planned co-ordination of all the manifold activities associated with the industry.
I do not think that can be challenged. Here is an industry that is conforming to the express desire of the Government to organise itself, and is making full use of efficient methods to co-ordinate the interests of the employers and employes. In view of the fact that they have done the pioneer work, we suggest that we should recognise that. No State subsidies should be given to any work permitted by this Bill unless the conditions conform to the fair wages stipulation.

11.10 p.m.

Sir R. HAMILTON: As my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) is not able to be here tonight, and, as he was referred to as "the villain of the piece" by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I should like to remind the hon. Member that the part which my hon. and gallant Friend took in the Debate in Committee was based on the fact that he took the view, which we also take, that this Clause would be ineffective. He went on to say that he hoped the Secretary of State would take the offer of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), and would go into the question again and see whether he could not do something more to ensure, in respect of all the houses built, that there should be more effectual control on the question of the wages paid to the men engaged in the building of them. The reason given by the Secretary of State is, I think, really unanswerable. This Bill is to guarantee a building society, and, however much we may desire, as we all do, that fair wages should be paid in the case of all contracts where the Government have any control, or any other contracts, I fail to see how it would be effective to put a Clause of this sort into a Bill of this nature, the purpose of which is to guarantee a building society. Therefore, I am afraid that we shall be unable to support the Amendment.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I suggest to the Government that, to any reasonable-minded
person, a case has been made out, both in Committee and in the House, that a fair wages clause ought to apply to the production of houses in relation to the building industry in our cities and counties. The Secretary of State, in Committee, did state fairly that he thought that the fair wages clause ought to apply, but he suggested a different method of approach from that suggested in connection with the Amendment moved by Members of the Opposition and supported by ourselves. I cannot conceive why there should be a refusal to insert a definite provision in the Bill to guarantee fair wages to those who are engaged in the industry. We stated in Committee, and I desire to state again ill the House, that certain standards have been guaranteed to certain sections engaged in the production of houses—the giving of land, or the sale of land, and the sale of money for the production of houses—and I cannot understand how the Government can refuse to incorporate in this Bill, in language that will be easily understood, an instruction to those concerned throughout the country to pay the rate of wages obtaining in the industry in the area in which the houses are being constructed.
We have had a certain amount of trouble in connectiion with the interpretation of what might be termed the rights of the fair wages clause in various areas. In the city of Glasgow, we have had numerous disputes in connection with housing schemes undertaken by the corporation and by private enterprise builders who have received a subsidy. We may have an employer who takes advantage of the fact that there is a large number of employés in the market, and, desiring to obtain cheap labour, offers a lower wage than that paid by employers who are bound by agreements in the building trade. The majority of employers in the building trade play a fair and straight game with the employés as regards the conditions that have been agreed upon by both sides in conference, but we always have that small minority of employers who desire to overcome the agreements that have been made, and who refuse to carry out the fair wages clause. The local authorities sometimes step in, as Glasgow has frequently done, and attempt to secure for the employés the guarantee of a fair wage,
but evasion takes place, and sometimes the authority themselves say that they have not sufficient power to compel these people to put the fair wages clause into operation. I plead with the. Government, if they are fair-minded in connection with these bargains come to between employers and employés, to remember that it is not only acting against the employés, but it is penalising the good employers who desire to keep to their bargain. We ought to penalise that small body of crafty employers who desire to evade their responsibilities. There is no reason why we should not penalise the bad employer by compelling him to face up to his responsibilities and prevent these disputes from taking place. We say, as representing the working classes, and I say as one who has been a member of the building trade from 13 years of age until 2½ years ago, that we are entitled to expect that you will pay respect to the desires of the working class and will give some assurance that you will incorporate in the Bill that desire of the Opposition and ourselves to secure for the working classes the fair wages that they are entitled to.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend and I have considered to the best of our ability this question since it was raised in Committee, and I should like, in informing the House that it is not possible to accept the Amendment, to add one or two other considerations to the reasons already given by my right hon. Friend in Committee. Let me first deal with a word that fell from the hon. Member opposite, who drew a lurid picture of the activities of the building societies and said the Government propose to guarantee them 5 per cent. The arrangement is that they are going to lend at 1 per cent. below the usual rate, 90 per cent. of the advance for the purpose of building houses intended to be let. That percentage works out not to 5 but to 4 per cent. I think the House will agree that that is a very valuable financial reinforcement and that the great resources of the building societies should be available, with the assistance of the Government guarantee, at 1 per cent. below the usual rate. My right hon. Friend pointed out in Committee the undesirability of including in the particular circumstances of this Clause an Amendment with regard to the
fair wages clause. The Minister of Health said a better method would be the issue of a circular calling the attention of local authorities to the matter. Let me add these considerations. The activities of the building societies are connected almost exclusively with the lending of money for the erection of houses. It is not sound legislation in one department of the building societies' activities to put in a provision with regard to the fair wages clause and to leave what must always be by far the greater area of their activities unaffected by that provision.
Anyone understanding the meaning of the series of Acts of Parliament must feel that the imposing of this particular provision with regard to the building societies, if it is to be done at all, should be done with regard to the whole and not to the small proportion of the financial activities which will only be partially covered by the State in a, local guarantee. I suggest that that is not the right way to deal with the terms under which building societies may loan money for house building. That, one may take it, is the view of the House and of Parliament, because in the Housing Consolidation Act of 1925 this provision, not so wide in its application, was introduced, as it had been previously in the Act of 1923. Neither in the Act of 1923 nor in the Act of 1925, when loans by building societies were made part of the building law, did Parliament think fit to put into the relevant Sections this particular provision with regard to building societies' loans. Parliament was right then, and I maintain that if you make this provision with regard to building societies' activities, it will not be a sufficient excuse for limiting it to one part of their activities to say that you limit it to the part where there is a local and State guarantee.
Building societies are an important and most valuable part of the social structure. They have received the particular attention of Parliament. Over a period of years a code with regard to their conduct has been built up. If you wish to alter the law with regard to building societies the proper way to do it is through the building society laws and not the housing laws. That is the consideration which I put before the House in addition to those that have already been introduced. On the whole matter,
I would urge that, having in view the number of cases in which there will be no contract at all into which such a provision can be put, the builder himself would be the borrower from the building society, and from the considerations I have urged with regard to the general position of building societies, the position will best be maintained by the circular which my right hon. Friend proposes to address to local authorities if and when the Bill passes. He asks me to say—and I do so with all the emphasis at my command—that should difficulties arise in particular cases his good offices or my good offices, and the good offices of the Department, will be fully at the service of those who may require them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the Glasgow case, where a sub-contractor went into bankruptcy and the men he had employed in connection with a building scheme were not paid their wages. I fear that no provision with regard to a fair wages clause could ensure any wages at all to men whose employer became bankrupt. Since he referred in further detail to the case, the present situation is that the main contractor handed over a sum of money which, I understand, was sufficient to pay the wages of the men, but that sum of money was immediately earmarked by proceedings in bankruptcy and did not reach the men. We are at present negotiating in order that not only the Unemployment and Health Insurance contributions of the men may be paid, but that their wages may be paid.
It is rather a severe request on the main contractor that he should have to pay two sums of money representing the wages which should also be paid by the subcontractor. I can assure the hon. Member that we are still actively pursuing the best mehods by which the interests of the men concerned can be served. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: I doubt whether the issuing of a circular to the local authorities will be as good to the workmen in the building industry as the insertion of our Amendment in the Bill. I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary explaining these matters, but he has not convinced us. The circular is to be sent to the local
authorities. Does that mean that they will have control over the contractors?

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member will recollect that the local authority has scrupulously to consider each proposal before it gives the guarantee. When it gives the guarantee the central authority then shares half the guarantee.

Mr. GRAHAM: My point is that the responsibility of seeing that the contract is carried out rests with the local authority.

Mr. SKELTON: This is rather a technical matter. When I said that the local authority were responsible I said they were responsible for their share of the guarantee. That is where they come in. I did not say that after the guarantee has been given the local authority is responsible for the carrying out of every detail of the contract.

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not expect that we shall be able to induce the Government to accept the Amendment, but I am not satisfied with what has been stated. For more than a generation the State has laid it down that the Fair Wage Clause should apply in all contracts on which it is interested. No one can argue that the State is not interested in the payment of this subsidy. We are all agreed that the State has a very considerable part to play in the whole of the housing question. What we are asking is that when the employers and the workmen, meet frequently to discuss conditions of labour and wages and come to an agreement, then whatever agreement they make applies to everyone engaged in the industry, whether employer or workman. It is agreed that there are

bad workmen and bad employers. The law is an agreement between the State and the citizen, and anyone who refuses to carry out the law is subject to punishments of one sort or another. In the same way an agreement entered into by employers and workmen to cover the industry as a whole in regard to wages and other conditions should have the force of law in the industry. Up to the present time the Government have recognised this and a fair wage clause has been in operation for more than a generation.

I am sorry that the Government have taken up the position that the fair wage clause is unimportant. If when trade begins to revive and houses begin to be built the employers refuse to carry out an agreement which has been entered into, it, will result in stoppages of work, and I believe that the men are always right when they are fighting for the preservation of their own rights. You do not make progress along that line. The only way to make progress is by reaching an agreement between employers and workmen and see that that agreement is carried out. If the employers refuse then they should be treated in exactly the same way as an ordinary criminal. The Government have provided for a fixed bath; that is a condition so far as the quality of the house is concerned; and there is no reason why a condition should not be laid down as regards wages and other conditions.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 190.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[11.33 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Aske, Sir Robert William
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Atholl, Duchess of
Blindell, James


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Boothby, Robert John Graham


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boulton, W. W.


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rankin, Robert


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Burnett, John George
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Carver, Major William H.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ker, J. Campbell
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Conant, R. J. E.
Knebworth, Viscount
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quintal
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, Harry R.


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Curry, A. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dunglass, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Eastwood, John Francis
Mabane, William
Spens, William Patrick


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stevenson, James


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strauss, Edward A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Fermoy, Lord
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tate, Mavis Constance


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thompson. Luke


Fox, Sir Gifford
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morgan, Robert H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Goldie, Noel B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
North, Captain Edward T.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Greene, William P. C.
Nunn, William
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, s.)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pearson, William G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Sir George
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Womersley, Walter James


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Potter, John



Hales, Harold K.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Commander Southby.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 37.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[11.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broadbent, Colonel John
Conant, R. J. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cooper, A. Duff


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Crooke, J. Smedley


Apsley, Lord
Burnett, John George
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duggan, Hubert John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Carver, Major William H.
Dunglass, Lord


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Eastwood, John Francis


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blindell, James
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Boulton, W. W.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bracken, Brendan
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Fermoy, Lord
Loder, Captain J. do Vere
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mabane, William
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Fox, Sir Gilford
McKie, John Hamilton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fraser, Captain Inn
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Dr. W, H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Magnay, Thomas
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Scone, Lord


Glossop, C. W. H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Helen S. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Goff, Sir Park
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Goldie, Noel B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morgan, Robert H.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stevenson, James


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hales, Harold K.
Munro, Patrick
Strauss, Edward A.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Godfrey (Moroeth)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
North, Captain Edward T.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Thompson, Luke


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pearson, William G.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Horobin, Ian M.
Penny, Sir George
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Potter, John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ker, J. Campbell
Rankin, Robert
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Leckie, J. A.
Remer, John R.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Womersley, Walter James


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.



Liddall, Walter S.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-


Llewellin, Major John J.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Daggar, George
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hint, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
Rea, Walter Russell


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valiev)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

11.49 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Perhaps it will be con-
venient if I state on this Motion that, formidable as the Paper looks, in fact it consists almost entirely of drafting or grammatical Amendments, with the necessary Amendments consequent upon putting into the Bill the date on which it will come into force. The number of Amendments of substance are only about 20, but even these raise no question of principle, and I do not think it is necessary to call the attention of this House to them. I should, of course, be only too glad to answer any questions which hon. Members may desire to ask.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before considering the Lords Amendments I wish to make a few remarks about those Amendments which may raise questions of Privilege. In considering this Bill there are several Amendments which might technically be treated as raising questions of Privilege, but this is a Hybrid Bill of which all notices were published under the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills. I propose, therefore, in dealing with Amendments which might raise questions of Privilege, to deal with this Bill as if it were a Private Bill sent down from the Lords under Standing Order 245. That Standing Order says:
This House will not insist on its Privileges with regard to any Clause in Private Bills, or in Bills to confirm any Provisional Orders or Provisional Certificates sent down from the House of Lords which refer to tolls and charges for services performed, and are not in the nature of a tax, or which refer to rates assessed and levied by local authorities for local purposes.
The House will probably approve of my treating the Bill in this way. The House will also notice that a great many of these Amendments are drafting Amendments and a few of them are Amendments of substance. I propose, if the House agrees, to put these drafting Amendments in groups, which will save a lot of time, and to pause when it comes to any Amendment of substance to see if any hon. Member wishes to raise any point upon them.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of London Passenger Transport Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave 'out "and."

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

11.53 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I took a very active part in the earlier stages of the Bill and the only Amendment to which I wish to refer is this first Amendment, which should be read in conjunction with the second. The effect of this altera-
tion is that, after the first constitution of the Board, the chairman becomes one of the appointing trustees. I do not seek to divide the House, but I wish to make a protest. The object of introducing appointing trustees was to make sure that the Board should not be under the control of the Government or under political control. Though it is true that the chairman of the Board is not in any sense a political person, yet the chairman continues to hold his office under pleasure of the Minister. There are circumstances in which the Minister can bring about the dismissal of the chairman and to some extent can influence the chairman. By making the chairman one of the appointing trustees, we are introducing a political element previously absent. I wish to place on record the introduction of this political element.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 71, line 16, agreed to.

CLAUSE 57.—(Date of operation of this part of this Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 17, leave out "January," and insert "July."

11.58 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.'
I have to call the attention of the House to this Amendment because it is necessary later to move a consequential Amendment in a subsequent Clause. The Amendment to which I am asking the House to agree inserts the 1st July for the coming into operation of Part IV of the Bill. That Part sets up a new system for certain undertakings which are now carried out under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Clause 106, to which I shall move the consequential Amendment, repeals those sections of the Road Traffic Act. There is a danger as the Bill stands that, whereas the new system in this Part could only be brought into operation on the 1st January, the Section of the Road Traffic Act under which the system is worked now, would be repealed immediately the Bill received the Royal Assent. There would therefore be an interregnum in which neither the old nor the new system would be applicable. It is possible that this difficulty is covered by
the Interpretation Act, but the position would be so serious if there were any mistake that it is not possible to risk it.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 135, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 106.—(Repeals.)

Consequential Amendment made to the Bill: In page 136, line 13, at the end, insert the words:
but this repeal shall not, as respects enactments for which other provisions are substituted by this Act, take effect until the respective dates upon which the provisions so substituted come into operation."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient to amend Section eleven of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, and Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1925, so as to provide that the maximum period which may, under the said Sections, respectively, be treated, subject to the provisions thereof, as being a period during which a teacher was employed in contributory service, shall be four years instead of one year in the case of a teacher in any school in a foreign country, being a school which is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Education or Scottish Education Department to be a school in which it is expedient, on account of special circumstances affecting the country in which it is situated, to facilitate the employment of British teachers."— (King' Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Margesson].

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Power to extend Part I of Act to foreign countries giving reciprocal treatment), 2 (Application for, and effect of, registration of foreign judgment),
3 (Rules of court) and 4 (Cases in which registered judgments must, or may, be set aside) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Powers of registering court on application to set aside registration.)

12.8 a.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out from the word "tribunal" to the end of the Subsection.
The words that will be omitted will be:
and, in any case where the application is adjourned, the court may order that execution of the judgment shall be stayed until the expiration of the period aforesaid on such terms as the court may think just.
The object of omitting these words is seen if one looks at Clause 2, where there is a Proviso:
that execution shall not issue on the judgment so long as, under this Part of this Act and the Rules of Court made thereunder, it is competent for any party to make an application to have the registration of the judgment set aside.
So long as it is competent for anyone to make an application to have the judgment set aside, execution cannot issue under the judgment. Clause 3 provides for making rules. Sub-section (1) (c) provides for service upon a judgment debtor of notice of the registration of a judgment. The Clause also makes provision for fixing the period within which an application may be made to have a registration of the judgment set aside, and in respect of the extension of the period so fixed. Having regard to the body of Rules which will be made under Clause 3, there is no need to mislead any court or person by putting at the end of Clause 5, Sub-section (1), that the court shall have power to stay the execution of judgment, when, owing to the operation of the two previous Clauses, it is clear that the judgment could not be executed in any case. This is particularly apparent when one looks at the opening words of Clause 5:
If, on an application to set aside the registration of a judgment.
These words clearly connote that there would be an application to set aside the registration of the judgment. In these circumstances, the time within which application could be made to set aside the judgment would not have gone by,
and, therefore, the judgment could not be executed, so that there is no need to give the court the power to stay the execution.

12.11 a.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for moving this Amendment. It remedies a slip in the preparation of the Bill which escaped notice in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 6 (foreign judgments which can be registered not to be enforceable otherwise), 7 (Power to apply Part I of Act to British Dominions, Protectorates and Mandated Territories), 8 (General effect of certain foreign judgments), 9 (Power to make foreign judgments unenforceable in United Kingdom if no reciprocity), 10 (Issue of certificates of judgments obtained in the United Kingdom), 11 (Interpretation), 12 (Application to Scotland), 13 (Application to Northern Ireland), and 14 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment: as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

12.12 a.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I want very shortly to enter a protest against this Bill being taken at the end of a long sitting. It is an important Bill about which there is a considerable amount of feeling. It raises points which should be discussed in the House, but it is obviously impossible, at this late hour, to detain the House for the purpose of entering into a minor though important matter. I hope that the Government will not make a habit of bringing forward, at this time of the night, Bills of this kind, raising minor points on which some
of us feel strongly, without giving us a proper opportunity for discussing them.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [Lords].

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Hacking.]

Orders of the Day — TRIBUNALS OF ENQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921.

12.13 a.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the letting and allocation since the 1st day of January, 1928, of stances and of other premises in the markets under the control of the Corporation of Glasgow, and the circumstances attending and the negotiations prior to the said letting and allocation, and allegations of bribery and corruption in connection therewith, or in connection with other matters relating to the civic and municipal administration of the Corporation of the city of Glasgow and the licensing administration affecting the said city since the said date.
I must apologise for having to detain the House for a few minutes on this Motion. It deals with a matter affecting a large number of people in the City of Glasgow. In recent years, numerous allegations have been made in the public Press and in communications addressed to Ministers and others to the effect that corrupt practices were taking place in the conduct of municipal business in Glasgow. Wherever these allegations have been of a sufficiently definite nature to enable the authorities charged with the administration of the criminal law to make investigations, such investigations have been made, but for the most part no sufficient evidence has been found to justify criminal proceedings. In February of this year, however, a Glasgow magistrate was indicted in the High Court of Justiciary for corruptly soliciting money as an inducement to or reward for his aid in connection with the allocation of market stances, and was fined £50 and declared
incapable of holding public office for three years. The case itself aroused great public interest, and led to numerous representations to the Government in favour of a searching investigation into the administration of Glasgow Corporation affairs. The representations culminated in the passing of a unanimous resolution by the Corporation of Glasgow on the 2nd ultimo, asking me to take steps to have a tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to inquire into allegations of corruption in connection with the municipal administration of that city. The Government's decision to take the necessary steps to set up a tribunal was announced in the House of Commons on the 9th of last month, when I also made the following statement:
I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate to say that, in the circumstances of the present case and with a view to removing any obstacle to the fullest investigation of the matters to be referred, he feels justified in intimating that any person, other than a member of the Corporation of Glasgow, who gives evidence before the tribunal, which may involve an admission that he has committed or been implicated in any way in a criminal offence relating to the matters being investigated, will not be prosecuted for such criminal offence but will be regarded as being in the same position as a person who has been called as King's evidence by the Crown in a criminal trial. That means that, by the giving of such evidence the witness will automatically be discharged from all liability to prosecution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1933; col. 1351, Vol. 275.]
By proceeding under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, it will be possible to take evidence on with, and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and it is hoped by these means, and by the measure of indemnity from prosecution promised in my announcement to the House of Commons last month, to secure an inquiry of a searching and conclusive character. As the inquiry relates to a local matter, it is right that the cost should be defrayed from local sources, and this the Corporation of Glasgow has undertaken to do. The members of the tribunal will be Lord Anderson, one of the Scottish High Court Judges, who will be Chairman; Sir Robert Boothby, K.B.E., manager of the Scottish Provident Institution and a director of the Bank of Scotland; and a third member whose name will be announced later. It
will rest with the Commission itself to decide when they will open their inquiry, and where they will sit, but it is anticipated that they will sit in Glasgow. In making my statement to the House on the 9th ult., I expressed very strongly my view that a public duty rested on those in a position to give evidence relevant to the inquiry to tender such evidence to the tribunal. I desire this evening to reiterate that view, and at the same time to pay tribute to the valuable public service done by Mrs. McArthur in exposing the transaction which formed the subject of the recent prosecution, and enabling the criminal authorities to take effective action in that case.
Before a tribunal can be appointed, it is a. statutory requirement that both Houses of Parliament should pass a resolution that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter described in the Resolution as of urgent public importance. The terms of the Motion submitted to the House have been formulated in consultation with the Scottish Law Officers. In moving the Motion, I may be allowed to say that the fair name of the city of Glasgow is involved. It has fallen to me, a citizen of Glasgow, to appoint the tribunal and to secure a, searching investigation. Anything which adversely affects the city of Glasgow touches the proper civic pride of its inhabitants. Let all those whose whisperings and stories have suggested that allegations of corruption exist now come forward and show the same civic spirit as Mrs. McArthur or for evermore keep silent.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has acted in this matter. It gives me personal satisfaction, and also, I have no doubt, gives satisfaction to those with whom I was associated for a number of years in the City Council of Glasgow, that the matter is now to be attended to in the manner suggested in the Motion. As a member of that council, I also was subjected to hearing from time to time suggestions referred to in the later remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate, and always have appreciated, that with the law as it stands officers of the Crown labour under certain difficulties which can only be obviated by the appointment of such
a tribunal as is now proposed. I have known no one deny that circumstances, so peculiar in their character as to create great doubt in the minds of many persons, have attended certain committees. I do not want to say much at this late hour, except to express my gratitude for the action now taken. I may, however, express a little surprise that it has not been possible to give us the name of the third member of the tribunal, and I trust that in the very near future we shall have that matter attended to. I had hopes that I might be allowed to say a few words with regard to where the inquiry should be held, and that it might be held in Glasgow, but, as it was laid down specifically by the right hon. Gentleman that that matter is within their own discretion, I forbear making any comment on that point.

12.24 am.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I commend the action which the Secretary of State has taken in connection with what has been a very grave question for the City of Glasgow. I am sure there is no citizen of that great city who has not been affronted by the suggestions which have been made regarding the way in which the city's business has been carried on. There undoubtedly have been matters of very great difficulty, and the fact that the investigation which was expected to take place was not carried through in the ordinary course of justice, has left a feeling of dubiety among the population of Glasgow, and created an attitude of suspicion which may have very inadequate foundations. Accordingly it seems to me of prime importance that those things which have been currently rumoured should be investigated. I hope much of what has been alleged has no foundation at all. One knows that, wherever you have a disappointed feeling with regard to investigation which has not taken place, things gain currency which may be entirely unjustified. I do not know whether that is the situation at the present time or not, but from my intimate knowledge of Glasgow I know there are things which affront my conscience when I hear them reported when I make my visits to Glasgow, and I know from personal experience there is no one who does not wish these things to be thoroughly investigated.
I am aware there are difficulties as regards investigation, and I am certain there will be great trouble in knowing where to begin. I do not know how you are going to have the charges defined, and, if the charges are not defined, I am not certain how you will begin to get the necessary evidence. An inquiry at large is a very difficult thing to conduct, but there remains the fact with which we have to deal, that there is this suspicion with regard to matters in this great municipality which must be resolved in some way or other. I cannot imagine that in the circumstances in which the Secretary of State finds himself there is any better way than to say: "Here is an open inquiry, and here there is afforded to every witness who will come forward on behalf of his city complete immunity so far as any prosecution against him is concerned if he will only tell us what he knows." I can imagine no better way in which this matter can be finally determined. So far as I am concerned, and speaking for a very large proportion of the community which has in a sense entrusted its conscience to its representatives in this House, I am glad to commend the course which the Secretary of State has chosen.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the thanks to the Secretary of State for setting up this judicial inquiry into the allegations of graft and corruption in connection with the administration of the city's affairs in Glasgow. I am glad to see there is whole-hearted approval at this stage. I would rather the action had been taken almost three years ago, when within 48 hours of coming to this House I raised the matter on the Floor of the House. We have heard a great deal about the failure to make charges. I cannot refrain from stating that one of the men who appeared in the High Court recently on a definite charge of graft and corruption was laid by me at that time to the authorities in Glasgow. The whole of the Labour movement were notified of the activities of that individual in connection with graft that he had received in the city's affairs. While it is true that the Secretary of State for Scotland has given us that inquiry which was denied us by the previous Labour Government, I do say that, late in the
day though it is, I welcome the inquiry into the activities of the city of Glasgow. I think the terms of reference are sufficiently wide and completely satisfactory. I have consulted large bodies of people in the city of Glasgow, including the Lord Provost, and every person with whom I have come in contact has been entirely satisfied with the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the terms of reference. In connection with the personnel of the inquiry, I think that both names that have been announced are quite satisfactory—one, a man of business standing and the other, Lord Anderson, taken from the High Court in Scotland. Both of these gentlemen are eminently suited to the inquiry. I am sorry that the third name has not been announced here to-day. I recognise the difficulties of the Secretary of State for Scotland in getting complete personnel for this committee. It is true that he has had a little disappoinntment in the matter, but I hope that within the next day or two he will be able to announce to the House the third name.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has stated that many allegations have been made in connection with the city's affairs. I stated at the beginning that if, as I assumed, there is a desire to bring to light anything that is disgraceful in the affairs of the city, there are at least 29 witnesses who were never examined in connection with the last High Court case, and I am satisfied that, allegations having been made at that time concerning certain individuals unnamed, there is plenty of room for inquiries. We do know that this graft and corruption has been going on, and what the committee can dig up remains with them. I do not state that they will succeed, because individuals may not be able to come forward, but, if the business men of Glasgow have been subjected to a
system of blackmail, then they will have no one to blame but themselves if they do not come forward now. The civic administration of Glasgow was once the pride of the world, and we hope that this inquiry will bring to light any disgraceful actions that might have been taken in the city, and that, in the end, honest and honourable men and women in that body will be able to conduct their proceedings in a harmonious and proper manner, and that the inquiry will make full use of the opportunities presented to clean up the city and let Glasgow settle down to a proper administration to conduct her civic affairs.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the letting and allocation since the 1st day of January, 1928, of stances and of other premises in the markets under the control of the Corporation of Glasgow, and the circumstances attending and the negotiations prior to the said letting and allocation, and allegations of bribery and corruption in connection therewith, or in connection with other matters relating to the civic and municipal administration of the Corporation of the city of Glasgow and the licensing administration affecting the said city since the said date.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes before One o'Clock.